St OS 
Υ 


Ἢ 


* 
ee 
Ἃ 


ΤΡ 


antes 
Hepes 
ao: 


᾿ bys ἕν 


My ἐπ ΛΝ, 


ig ΜΝ ᾿ 


ft Ν ἄμ ων 
ΟΝ Ὡς ' yen 
᾿ ἙΝ 


BIBLICAL COMMENTARY 


ON 


ΠΝ NEW eS TAMENT. 


BY 


DR. HERMANN OLSHAUSEN, 


PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN 


FOR CLARK’S FOREIGN AND THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. 


FIRST AMERICAN EDITION. 
REVISED AFTER THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION, 


BY 


Ἂς Οὐ KORN Deer aria. 


PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, 


TO WHICH IS PREFIXED OLSHAUSEN’S 
PROOF OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 


TRANSLATED BY DAVID FOSDICK, JR. 


ΤΟ. 


N EW ΟΝ ΚΞ 
SHELDON & COMPANY, PUBLISHERS, 
498 & 500 BROADWAY. 


1S: 6i'G", 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by 
SHELDON, BLAKEMAN & CO, 


In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of 
New York. 


STEREOTYPED BY 
THOMAS B. SMITH, 
82 ἃ 84 Beekman-street, N. ἃ, 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


Pane ΤΥ. 


CONTINUED FROM VOLUME I. 


§ 1. The Healing of a Dumb Man.—The Discourses of Jesus Thereupon. Luke 

ΠΟΤΈ ΘΒ. sfolancasa) owas ciahh 3 4)ci ciclo \otal ania eleayain) eieiel sletaiataiet sini e's} <ierelaiele ΠΡ" 
§ 8. Continuance of the Discourse of Jesus. Luke Xi. 29--36... ......0.2eeeeeeee 
§ 9. Rebuke to the Pharisees and Lawyers. Luke xi. 37-54........ccceeeeeees 
§ 10. Various Discourses of Jesus. Luke xii. 1-59..........0ceeeeeeees eves oles 
§ 11. Continuation of the Conference.—Exhortation to Repentance. Luke xiii. 1-9, 
§ 12. Cure of a Sick Woman. Luke xiii. 10-21.............00. J ateiaetnivtuielwteiatere 
§ 13. Conversations of Jesus by the Way. Luke xiii. 22-35.........+..4. sib δ 
§ 14. Jesus Dines with a Pharisee. Luke xiv. 1-24 ......... stetafar τότ ποτ revive 
§ 15. The Demands of Jesus on his Disciples. Luke Xiv. 25-35..........000. oe 
§ 16. Parables Relating to the Compassionate Love of God. Luke xv. 1-32...... 
§ 17. Parables Relating to the Compassionate Love of our Fellow-men. Luke 

KVisi-Gilis/s sje'sinialsisiele sale Core cere cece - cece ecw ececces 
§ 18. Conclusion of the Parabolic Discourses. Luke ἘΝῚ. 1-10... 00. eae ονο ες es 
§ 19. The Healing of Ten Lepers. Luke xvii. 11-19.......... Sfelsvelslsieisie/siejeiniele)e 
§ 20. The Coming of the Kingdom of God. Luke xvii. 20-37............. “9.69 
§ 21. On the Efficacy of Prayer. Luke xviii. 1-14......... ὁ στο το σὐοοοοδουοοὸ 


B. SECOND SECTION. 


Common Account, by the Three Evangelists, of the Last Journey of Jesus. 
Matth. xix. 1—xx. 34; Mark x. 1-52; Luke xviii. 15—xix. 28.......... 
. On Marriage, Matth. xix. 1-15; Mark x. 1-16: Luke xviii. 16, 17......... 


§1 

§ 2. On Riches. Matth. xix. 16; xx. 16; Mark x. 17-31; Luke xviii. 18-30.... 

§ 3. Of Humility. Matthew xx. 17-28; Mark x. 32-45; Luke xviii. 31-33....... 

§ 4. The Healing of Two Blind Men in Jericho. Matthew xx. 29-34; Mark x. 
AG—D Zio LUO) XVAll. |S ὕΞ- 9.2 τ προ ΣΝ ciel otiieloisaisl sPeVoisis/otel ci cisteldjatelesstebei<(eleyc/elese\s 

Bebo. Obrist'd Visit to Zacchous. » Luke PAV... dwicrsois eeisievic.o o ga's,eevineaue'eas 

§ 6. The Parable of the Talents. Luke xix. 11-28; [Matthew xxv. 14-30]...... 


C. THIRD SECTION. 


Christ’s Entry into Jerusalem, and the Description of his Ministry there. Mat- 


thew xxii—xxv.; Mark xii—xiii.; Luke xix. 29; xxi. 38. “. 
§ 1. The Entry of Christ into Jerusalem, Matthew xxi. 1-11; Mark 3 xi. 1-10; 
Puke) x29 =A JOHN LPNS eiapslovelci’ died 9 aveys aie, τοῖς ale/cieiclelelelalasele aXe 


§ 2. The Fig-Tree Cursed. Mark xi. 11-14 ........ceeeeeee dia a's τος τος δ 


PAGB 


C02 CO CO? C0> CO 


TABLE OF CONTENTS, 
PAG 
3. The Purification of the Temple. Matthew xxi. 12-16; Mark xi. 15-18; Luke 
xix. 45-48........0. plate (sievelalorelsteleraisa/sieieicyefelsisielelsieleteleas\ eterelieiieniareieis eee 149 
4, On the eyes of Faith. Matthew xxi. 11-22; marie Xd, 19-26 cieciwiele Bis netele 152 
5. Conversations of the Lord with the Pharisees. Matth. xxi. 23—xxii. 14; 
Mia ke exc 2 1-- τι: 12.; Mata @|EXEN Wl IO) Sere τοὺς ds eiajisiersts ἈΠΕ, Ὁ τ ere ον 155 
6. New Conversations of Jesus with the Pharisees and Sadducees. Matthew 
KE JO—460" Marke χα 19. 97} ΠΟ ΣΧ, 20-44 «cree cpejeicleicletele sieeve τ τ τς 114 
7. Discourses Censuring the Pharisees. Matthew xxiii. 1-39; Mark xii, 38-40; 
Tuke xx. 45-47......csecence HosoScndaonoaoae συ. ΘΕ 22) hes 
8. The Gift of the Widow. Mark xii. 41-44; Luke xxi. 1-4.. ZdouoGdon Zak 
9. Predictions of Jesus Respecting the Last Things Matthew xxiv. pies 46; 
Mark xiii. 1-37; Luke xxi, 5-38.......... Prrnotsiolsiaisicisicielersiosslersiels ΠΣ: . 218 
EXPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
INTRODUCTION....... SAGareoaceeb dane odad on mcde abeteefolietelefohetolcie ποθ» 281 
US Ol ΟΠ 1a aa gadonoodgondoMenanad doc ἀρ δος σα one eiclsvelehs 281 
2. Of the Genuineness of the Gospel by John........... πο στε δον δ τ ΠΕΣ δ . 286 
3: OlmheDesion ΟΣ ΠΟΠΗΝΞ ΟΙΟΒΡΘΙΣ τς Ἐπ ΒΦ. τ τ Ὁ ττ τος τ" . 291 
4. Time and Place of the Composition. .. «. «ὁ τ ν ον ον etelaieieteiolelsielstoletedotaieoiercntetsie 295 
Dew LCV LUO velar sietetelsietefaleoteisietalaletsrstelsteistelaveleieterel-le Hoo wooboGoNooobogmaGD AAD ZEEE 


1. 
FIRST PART. 


From the Beginning of Christ’s Ministry to his Journey to the Feast of Taber- 


MEIER Goan gocsoonbodotun do choooes oo ddniaGbe akaisielaleverslelorelsiecisioketeracetorerete 299 
De σηπία: eS OW MUMS. οἰς crc: oie cine! o\cleleleleley=/cleninlolal/siniwiele\eletelis\nlelesisicieleis's)s\« 299 
2. First Testimony of the Baptist Concerning Christ. ee Collects Disciples. 
ΘΟΒῺ 1. IRE τς τς τς πο Sod odd dddak dngodadoowadodanoude 327 
8. Jesus at the Marriage in Cana. John 11. 1-12.00... 96 56 cecsevecceceraces 339 
4, Jesus Purifies the Temple. John ii. 13-22.......... cee cecccrereseccrees 343 
5. The Visit of Nicodemus. John ii, 23—iii. 21.......eceeeescecceeeeceee .. 348 
6. Second Testimony of the Baptist Concerning Jesus. John iii. 22-36........, 365 
7. The Conversation of Christ with the Woman of Samaria. John iv. 1-42..... 372 
8. The Healing of an Officer’s Child. John iv, 43-54.........--.eeeeeesse eee 384 
9. Healing of the Sick Man at Bethesda. John v. 1-47........6.- ss κα κα κεν κεν 387 
10. The Feeding of the Five Thousand.—Jesus Walking on the Sea.—Discourses 
on Partaking his Flesh and Blood. John vi. 1-71....... sodobondoonos eee 404 


II. 
SECOND PART. 


From the Journey of Christ to the Feast of Tabernacles till the Journey to the 
Last Passover. John vii. L—xi. 57 ...0....cc.csccccccvecs be Aaiete fats ον 427 


§ 1. Christ’s Journey to the Feast of Tabernacles, John vii 1-36. was τὴν τὸ Sat 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. Vv 


PAGE 

§ 2. Discourses at the Conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles. John vii. 37; 
Glin ΟΣ τ ΡΝ rave crilerscciaysiciaa sis aveteraiaasiescttrerereiatel elayare (aise Patetavete 431 
§ 3, History of the Adulteress. John vii. 53; viii, 11............ Satehevelalare satel ets 465 
§ 4. Healing of the Man Born Blind. John ix. 1-34.........0.ceceeee ceceees 414 
§ 5. Discourses of Jesus against the Pharisees. John ix. 35—x. 21... Ὁ νν νον νννον 483 
§ 6. Feast of Dedication. John x. 22-39.........0cceeeees ἀρ ἀρ lelctalsvetnarals 495 
§ 7. The Raising of Lazarus. John x. 40—xi. 57....... wiapetata alate tals iiatats'e τον 502 

HI. 


THIRD PAR tt 


Last Residence of Christ in Jerusalem at the Passover. John xii. 1-19, 26... 619 
§ 1. The Anointing of Jesus and his Entrance into Jerusalem. Jobn xii. 1-19, 


[Matthew xxvi. 6-13; Mark xiv. 3-9.]............00. sin wieleletere ΡΠ 
§ 2. Last Public Discourses of Jesus. John xii, 20-50.......ccccecseesecceces 523 
5.3: ΤΠΘ Washing of the δοὺς > Jighm) xii 130.0). 2/0. < celsja/e'ss.+,s δὴν τς ΟΣ <leieiaieisie 534 
§ 4. Last Discourses of Jesus Addressed td his Disciples before his Death. John 

xiii, 31—xvii. 26...... allel cpaihelaretoraetVoliae i alletatorefeha/ala1 ehatatarel emai vel tats ia/alee sei 542 


THE SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION OF 
JESUS CHRIST. 


iv 
PIRSTYPAE.L. 


OF THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS OHRIST. 


§ 1. The Last Meal of Jesus Christ with his Disciples. Matthew xxvi. 17-35° 
Mark xiv. 12-31; Luke xxii. 7-38; John xiii. 21-29...........4. concse 80] 


int 


τὰ cnn sone ΤΑ μὴν 
TON BONG SLs ee 


byw ‘hot ef 


ἣν ath ee / 
Cae ws elt 


14 “nh, ον ΠΝ Pa Re 
eo Wl ι P, 


ὌΝ ν ων ᾿" 


ORDER OF THE SECTIONS OF THE GOSPELS 
VOLUME 11. 


ARRANGED AFTER EACH GOSPEL. 


CHAPTER 


ST. MATTHEW. 


IN 


PAGE PAGE 
xix. 1-15. ee ereeee veeve 99 CHAPTER xxii. VBA Grier 2 ρ τους το steve 114 
xix, 16—xx.16......... 106 REMI WSs cteciecierce: LOO 
5-3 Sl oY. ee Rey Be Lee ce xxiv. Il—xxy. 46....... 218 
xx 29-34. ..). Δ ΝΡ! ἐξ ΧΧΥ. 1 απο ae 134 
Ἐπ LN τε ον προ τον 140 sf XK Vl. ——EKV Al yeelel ciel eve cree OW 
Sod 1... -1Ὁ.- econ τς So 1.40 ε SOK Vile 1 τὴ ὺ- .. 607 
ΣΙ 1 Ξ ὯΝ εἰς το εἰς cic veel so XXVL 1T—3H.......c0004 608 
pS yy Fy. o.c) 14. τς ἴδι 

ST. MARK. 
Se a MGa vice {τορος OO NC ERA DH Keke Moise ἘῚ 12. .tvecaatewi Ost 
moles trcclestle sieverereceen LOG a3 xii. 13-37. ’ . 114 
το 89.--ΔὅὉ᾽ς « ὁ «ες εοἰς aclemlass a xii. 38-40.. Ne ogamerse OO: 
ἘΠ ΟΞ: ὁ 2 τος οἵοιοιοις νον low (ἢ xii. i ET RN Oa oe 211 
Mahl Osis coc crewceweseia caw ὦ xiii. ΞΘ ΣΕ σεις -2LS 
sat, 11:3 4 πὴ Ὁ Sa Saison 141 th xiv. Ξ ΘΝ ol τ τα πολ δ Ole 
ΚῚΣ LD = Sirs crebercietolclelelersiem ee, We ΙΥ 11.0.3. πον ζεείον OOS 
ἈΠ 9. Θὲ ον ὁ o sisioerieieinie LOD M3 ἘΣ, θΞ| 91 εοοεονοοος 010 

ST. LUKE. 
δῖ 0. δι νου elieis ela ον τ ΕΔ ΡΠ ΕΣ τ υτῖν 18-:-:ὅϑ0 1 τὰ Ὁ ονς κυ = . 106 
MTS —OA wo cicisiacoivicicre ἐπ ΣΥΝ ἐξ SVMs olsun sles τἠν γεν - 122 
rah, ἢ πα σούς 15] ae Ἔν 50: 5 διὸ ς τ ν τς wer dou 
MU ol AHO... sivas mosincilee ree Ws ΠΧ iL ll ΘΕ τς τον τινε Ὁ 132 
ἘΠῚ JINR ἐν ς τοῖν τ) ae xix 11.-θ 8: ς ς Sha ghee ἘΠῚ 
NA LOS ss: evea sivveeleivtoem ios uo xix, 29—xxi. 38........ 135 
νυ 24 3. /clccciaietcncte epee ae te SEER ye OA a cyatavovatelalcleve 140 
Εν. a 0,5 ce cciniclevcieheteraienmone We KoA =A ΒΝ ΠΝ τ εγο τὶ τούς ς οἷς 149 
Dy 51--ὅ9ὃ.. ΝΡ ν κοι cae σὉ oe KEK MM LO pare slave stearate 157 
ΕΟ wiles ciccciers sidesesree Oa ἐξ So.) PAS Snead or 174 
Kylie 1510... (ἐν sieve eee oe εἰ ΠΕ a a Ce mice ec 196 
ἘΠ — 1 O)sc.c'vs, ects 87 i ἘΠῚ dA τ ον τον 217 
VIL λῦ- οι ς c coe cameo 43 Sods Wie Binroonoc onc τὸν 18 
Vda HVS ss aicas chelate ree ce xxii. 7-38 οί θεν ον, 6085 
Evite LG ΤῸ οἷος lelcleielareeeoo 


ORDER OF THE SECTIONS OF THE GOSPELS. 


ST. JOHN. 
PAGE 
CHAPTER i. 1-18. @eeereeeeeeer 299 CHAPTER Vil 
a 1b) IRE Ag os oacaunooe 327 τ ix. 
ἃ Ὁ ἸΞΤ eefs sree να εν ον 339 εἰ ix 
Vey o=aairate stare atenerevere . 343 τ x 
i, 9.555: ΔΠ δ το δεν τοήν τιν 348 Oy x 
IIa a—a On alofelaleyelettetetstere 365 τί xii. 
Vel — Lieve ro tels ehbisisvolatersi = 372 τ ΧΙ 
ἣν; 1555 4: πε λτο πον σον 952. us xii. 
στ lallevelelevsistepene 387 τ xii. 
Vis Wil erercareisletals νιον 404: ub xiii. 
vii. 1—xi. 57 προς 5. -: xiii. 
vu. 1-36 eeeereeeee e@ere 427 J xiii. 
Vi. 37—viil. 659 evece ecee 437 


PAGE 

53—yiil, 11........ 465 
1.92. κ νιον... oe. 414 
3 ὅτε χε ΔΝ Ὁ ποτ ες 483 
22=BO ον νυ ον» 495 
40—xi. 57......... 502 
1—xvii. 26........ 519 
Oo τ νι . 519 
Dm νος ἐν εχ δι ὅς 141 
20-50........ φόνον 523 
1-30 eeceese eeerssecee 534 
31—xvil. 2........ 542 
μὰ ἘΞ teielsaalsisiessielels 608 


COMMENTARY 


ON 


1D Hy Οὐ ΟΕ Tae. 


§ 7. Tue Heauine or A Dump May. Tue Discourses or 
JESUS THEREUPON. 


(Luke xi. 14-28.) 


WHat is contained in this paragraph has already been considered 
in detail at Matth. xii. 22-30, and 43-45, We simply observe here, 
in regard to the arrangement, that the position in the history as- 
signed to the occurrence by Luke, [if there were such,] would un- 
doubtedly deserve the preference. The fearful outbreak of hatred 
on the part of the Pharisees and lawyers in the accusation that 
Jesus cast out spirits by the power of the prince of darkness, seems 
_to belong to the end of his ministry. The reference also (Luke xi. 
24-26) to the return of the evil spirit, stands immediately after the 
cure in a connexion more appropriate than in Matthew, who inserts 
before it the subsequent discourse (Luke xi. 29, seq.) on the sign 
of Jonah. Everything, finally, from the account of this cure, down 
to Luke xiii, 9, stands in close internal connexion. The only thing 
in this section peculiar to Luke is the account (ver. 27, 28) of the 
woman who blesses the mother of Jesus for her son’s sake. This 
little narrative distinguishes itself so remarkably for naiveté and 
originality, that it furnishes no slight evidence for the correctness 
of Luke’s history. The invention or inappropriate insertion of it is 
hardly conceivable. Without doubt we owe to some eye-witness 
the account of this conversation conducted by Jesus on the occasion 
of his healing the dumb man. As respects, finally, the substance 
of the narrative, it is not unimportant on account of the striking 
answer of Jesus in which the practical aim of all the Saviour’s efforts 
is made apparent—that he cared not to excite wondering astonish- 
ment, but to bring about a saving change of the whole life. The 


10 Luke ΧΙ. 14-29. 


woman was assuredly, as her exclamation shews, struck with the 
power and wisdom of Jesus, but, without taking the words home to 
herself and applying them to her own salvation, she is lost in con- 
templating his glory, and extols his blessedness through his mother, 
to whom she is led as a woman first to refer. This want of practical 
interest the answer of Jesus reproves, in so delicate a way that the 
woman, who had meant well in her remarks, could not feel offended, 
while yet both she and the others present must have been led to 
consider the essential purposes of his mission. (In the word μενοῦνγε, 
there is on the one hand an implied acknowledgment of what was 
true in the woman’s exclamation, but on the other an intimation 
that the man who heard and kept the word of God stood still higher. 
The passage might be translated thus:—he who lets the word of 
God operate spiritually within him, and is thereby born again, 
stands higher than the earthly mother of the Messiah. But this 
spiritual blessing is open to you all—appropriate it to yourselves.) 


“ 


§ 8. ConTINUATION oF THE DiscouRSES oF JESUS. 
(Luke xi. 29-36.) 


What was needful for the understanding of ver, 29-32 has been 
given already at Matth. xii. 38, seq. In regard to its position, how- 
ever, the narrative of Luke deserves the preference, as was already 
observed in our exposition of Matthew (wt supra), partly because 
we find in Luke greater originality, especially in arranging Christ’s 
discourses, and next because in this very section the exactness of his 
narrative is clearly manifest. According to Luke, the Saviour 
directed his rebuke expressly to the mass of the assembled people, 
and the allusion to the people of Nineveh agrees well with this. In 
the closing verses of this section, two thoughts are subjoined by 
Luke to the discourse of Jesus, which at Matth. v. 15; vi. 22, 28, 
are already explained in the Sermon on the Mount. It is of itself 
very possible that such sententious statements may have been uttered. 
by Christ on many occasions, just as the former of them occurs in 
another connexion in Luke viii. 16. Still the connexion, especially 
of the latter idea, is in Matthew not so simple as to give it the 
appearance of being there in its proper and original place. Here, 
on the other hand, the admonition to care for the purity of the in- 
ward sight, so connects itself with the preceding ideas, that its very 
peculiarity seems to mark it as original, The general train of 
thought, however (from ver. 33-36), requires careful development, 
for it is not at first obvious. ΤῸ those who asked signs from heaven 
the Lord had held forth the example of the Ninevites and the queen 


Luxe XI. 29-36. 11 


of the East, who were prepared to acknowledge Divinity in far less 
glorious manifestations of it, namely, in Jonah and Solomen. From 
this thought Jesus makes a transition to the object of all revelations 
of the Divine among mankind, namely, that those who are entering 
(the dwelling of God) may see the light (iva of εἰσπορευόμενοι (εἰς 
τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ) τὸ φέγγος βλέπωσι). The perfect revelation of 
God in Christ himself is so constituted that its glory radiates far 
and wide, striking every eye. The eye itself certainly must be 
sound and clear if it is to take in purely the impressions of the 
truth. Hence the admonition to bring the eye into a right condi- 
tion. It might surprise us here that at ver. 89, λύχνος, lamp, being 
that which gives light, denotes the Saviour himself as the light of 
the world, while again in ver. 34 it means the ability to take in the 
light—to see. Already, however, at Matth. vi. 22, 23, it was remarked 
that light itself was needful for the reception of the light (as a 
negative pole for the positive), and the darkness here is not to be 
considered as simply the absence of light, but as that which resists 
every reception of the light, and consequently as the moral impu- 
rity which flies every discovery of itself by the power of light. In 
order to receive the light of Christ, therefore, the eye must be 
single, and then it works with an influence so quickening and 
light-giving, that the light in man completely and entirely per-_ 
vades the man. The figure here is only distinguished from that at 
Matth. vi. 22 (where the particulars may be compared) by the 
additional clause ver. 36. ‘There seems, however a tautology im- 
plied in this additional statement, el οὖν τὸ σῶμά σου ὅλον φωτεινόν--- 
ἔσται φωτεινὸν ὅλον, if therefore thy whole body be luminous—it will 
be all luminous. The “as” which follows, however, indicates very 
naturally a silently implied “‘so,” by which the following sense would 
arise: “ The enlightenment of man—(owing to the likeness having 
been taken from the outward eye, the body stands for man’s inner 
being)—by the reception of the Divine light through means of a 
single and clear eye, illuminates him so entirely (amidst the sur- 
rounding darkness), that he shines (inwardly, spiritually) as when 
outwardly (in the night) a light irradiates one with its beams.” It 
is not, therefore, a merely ideal knowledge of God and Divine things 
that is here spoken of, but the communication of a higher life- 
principle, which has the power of forming in him to whom it is im- 
parted a fountain of similar life (John iv, 14). The whole passage, 
therefore, pourtrays believers as men transformed by the influence 
of Christ (of the φῶς τοῦ κόσμου) into φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ (Phil. 1. 15), 
enlightening what lies around them.* (In ver. 85 σκοπεῖν, as else- 
where βλέπειν, is used in the sense of to take care, to guard oneself. 


* Compare also Dan. xii. 3; (Matth. xiii 43;) 1 Cor. xv. 41, 42. 


12 Luxe XI. 36-54. 


In the New Testament this meaning occurs only here—ver. 36, 
ἀστραπή is = φέγγος, the shining, gleaming flash.) 


§ 9. REBUKE TO THE PHARISEES AND LAWYERS. 
(Luke xi. 37-54.) 


In the following discourse against the Pharisees and lawyers, 
Matthew, according to his custom, has wrought into one whole, the 
thoughts contained in Luke, with others which are not found in 
him. In this form the separate ideas will be found more fully ex~ 
plained on Matth. xxiii. We merely consider here the entire dis- 
course of Luke. Its form leaves no doubt that here again we have 
in Luke the account of an eye-witness, while the discourse in Mat- 
thew (ch. xxiii), manifestly combines the elements of kindred dis- 
courses which might have been spoken by Jesus on very different 
occasions. For, in the jirst place, Luke’s account starts from a 
definite historic occasion. During the Saviour’s discourse which 
followed the cure of the dumb man (xi. 14), a Pharisee came up 
and invited him‘to dine (in explaining ἀριστᾷν, ver, 37, there is no 
ground for deviating from the common meaning prandere). As he 
‘observed that Jesus ate without having washed his hands, and 
loudly expressed his astonishment at this after the meal was finished, 
Christ at once commenced a conversation on the relation of inward 
and outward purity. Owing to this observation of the Pharisee, the 
discourse was directed immediately against them—but for reasons 
stated v. 45, it was also extended to the lawyers. One of the lawyers, 
namely, applied the words to himself, and therefore the Lord turned 
to that party and rebuked their errors. Jn the second place, the 
discourse concludes (ver. 53, 54) with a general remark by the 
writer, that such a public declaration had brought the opponents of 
Jesus to the firm determination to overthrow him as the destroyer 
of their whole power over the people. Matthew wants all the points 
which in Luke shew that the account was drawn from the life. He, 
on the contrary, gives an address which unites all the antipharisaic 
elements to be found in the discourses of Jesus; these he has 
arranged with skill and discernment, into a new and entire whole. 
(In the closing verses of this section at Luke xi. 54, there occur 
some unusual expressions. As respects first the ἐνέχειν δεινῶς, it 
means, as at Mark vi. 19, insidiari. In the LXX. it occurs at 
Gen, xlix. 23. Only at this passage in the New Testament does 
ἀποστοματίζειν occur. According to Timzus, in the Platonic Lexi- 
con, when intransitive it is = ἀπὸ μνήμης λέγειν, to recount from 
memory. ‘Transitively, however, it means to cause one to tell some- 


Luxe XI. 37-54; XII. 1. 13 


thing, drawing it as it were out of his mouth. Suidas says, ἀποστο- 
ματίζειν φασὶ τὸν διδάσκαλον ὅταν κελεύει τὸν παῖδα λέγειν ἄττα ἀπὸ 
στόματος. With this meaning agrees the subsequent ἐνεδρεύειν, lie 
in wait, [which does not again occur save at Acts xxiii. 21,] as also 
θηρεῦσαι, hunt, which describes the ensnaring nature of the questions 
put by Christ’s enemies, examples of which we have at Matth. xxii. 
15, seq. "Evedpevery, from ἔνεδρα, corresponds also in etymology with - 
the Latin insidiari.) 


§ 10. Various Discourses oF JESUS. 
(Luke xii. 1-59.) 


To the contents of the following paragraphs we may apply the 
same remarks as to the foregoing. The thoughts, for the most part, 
recur also in Matthew, who arranges them in various connexions, 
according to his mode of combining portions of different discourses. 
Granting even that particular terse and sententious maxims may 
have been uttered by the Saviour on different occasions, we can 
scarcely conceive that more lengthened portions of discourse, agreeing 
word for word, should have been repeatedly uttered. And in ex- 
amining the originality of this section, everything again here speaks 
in favour of Luke. For again at the very beginning of the chapter, 
he connects the discourse that follows with a definite historic occur- 
rence. As soon as Jesus left the house of the Pharisee, and stepped 
out amidst the numerous masses of the assembled people, he con- 
tinued to the disciples his discourse respecting the Pharisees, pointing 
out the danger which threatened them from these self-seeking men, 
and referring them to that higher aid which stood ready for them. 
This discourse, which the Lord carried on with his disciples amidst 
a wide circle of surrounding people, was suddenly interrupted by an 
individual from amidst the crowd, with a request so strangely out 
of place, that the very contrast between this incident and the 
discourse of Jesus goes to prove the original character of the 
account used by Luke in this section. This man, full of his petty 
domestic affairs, asks that the Saviour would settle a quarrel about 
an inheritance in his family. The gentle Son of man deems it not 
beneath his dignity to lead even this erring one into another path. 
He takes the trouble to shew to him by a parable the nothingness 
of earthly possessions (ver. 16-21). And then he resumes the ad- 
dress to his disciples, taking up in such a way the thread which had 
been let fall, that the intervening words are woven into the connexion. 
The Father’s care for those who seek spiritual blessings, forms again 
the subject of his discourse, with an intimation that spiritual are 


14 Ean ἈΠ 11 


infinitely exalted above earthly treasures. After the possession of 
the former, therefore, the Lord exhorts his people to strive and not 
to slacken in their zeal, but to persevere like servants awaiting their 
Lord. Here Peter again breaks in on the discourse of Jesus (ver. 
40), and asks to whom he meant to apply these words, to them alone 
or to all. This question leads Jesus to go still farther into the para- 
ble he had chosen, of servants who await their lord’s return, and so 
to develope it as to convey to him the answer sought, and bring the 
apostles to the conclusion that he spake of his own departure and 
return. This brings the Lord finally (ver. 54-59) to address a 
reproof to the crowd, in which he charges them with that very 
hypocrisy against which he had at the commencement warned them. 
He reminds them of the visible signs of his presence, and earnestly 
exhorts them not to mistake these signs. Thus the whole is s0 
connected, and shews itself by the intermediate questioning to be 
so plainly the original account of an eye-witness, that it cannot be 
dissevered. Its connexion with what precedes reveals it plainly as 
a portion of that great journal of travel which Luke used in writing 
his work. The separate thoughts, here given in their original con- 
nexion, Matthew, according to his custom, re-arranged under certain 
general points of view. 

Ver. 1.—The account of Luke begins with a well-marked his- 
torical connexion in point of time with the foregoing narrative (év 
οἷς 501]. χρόνοις in the sense of meanwhile, during which period, 
synonymous with ἐν 6 Mark 11.19 ; Luke v. 84). While he was at 
meat (Luke xi. 37), the people assembled before the house of the 
Pharisee, in order to obtain a sight of the prophet. (The μυριάδες 
denotes, like the nt235, great, but indefinite numbers.) Here then 
the Lord begins an address of warning against the Pharisees, directed, 
in the first instance, certainly to his disciples, but plainly uttered in 
the presence of the people (ver. 13, 54), whose ears many of his words 
may have reached. The exposition of the words has been given at 
Matth. xvi.6. As the explanation of /eaven, there is here expressly 
added ‘‘which is hypocrisy.” The prominent reference to this 
springs from the fact that all the Lord’s preceding rebuke, as also 
the whole blameworthy peculiarities of the sect, centred in their 
hypocrisy. To the spirit of the Gospel, indeed, nothing is more 
opposed than hypocrisy, for, whether in its grosser or more refined 
form, whether consciously or unconsciously cherished, it ever implies 
ὦ contradiction between the inner man and the outer form. This 
contradiction is removed by Christianity, which establishes sim- 
plicity of soul, and attaches value to the outward appearance 
only so far as it is the genuine expression of the inner life. (The 
term πρῶτον, therefore, is to be taken as meaning, jirst of all, above 
all, as at Matth. vi. 338.) 


Luxe XII. 2-16, 15 


Ver. 2-12.—The words which follow have been already ex- 
plained, namely, ver. 2-9, at Matth. x. 26, seq. (compare Luke viii. 
17), ver. 10, at Matth. xii. 31 ; Mark iii. 28, ver. 11, 12; at Matth. 
x. 19, 20. The connexion of the words with the admonition to 
beware of the Pharisees is also so simple as to be self-evident. 
Yet in ver. 2 and 3 there is some obscurity in the connexion of 
what precedes and follows. The conjoining of the disclosure of what 
is concealed with the warning against hypocrisy, in the sense that 
“the secrets of the hypocrite shall one day be laid open,” is out of 
the question, because at ver. 3 the revealing agency is ascribed to 
the apostles themselves. "We must rather supply, therefore, at this 
passage, the words fear not, as is expressly done at Matth. x. 26. 

On the one hand this open revelation of the inner man forms 
the contrast to hypocrisy, and on the other the display, in its full 
glory, of that Divine truth which the apostles were called to ad- 
vocate, necessarily consummates their triumph. Hence, even if 
opponents arise against them, the powerful protection of God will 
shield the champions of the truth. The declaration of ver. 10, on 
the sin against the Holy Ghost, was, it is true, uttered in a fuller 
form on an entirely different occasion. (Compare on Matth. xii. 
31.) Yet it is not improbable that the Saviour in this connexion 
referredsagain to the main idea. For, the warning against apostacy 
led him very naturally to speak of the lowest stage of declension. 
In contrast, however, with the sin against the Holy Ghost there is 
brought forward at the conclusion (ver. 12), the aid proceeding 
from the Holy Ghost, to those who in faith cleave to the Redeemer. 

Ver. 13~16.—The narrative which follows is peculiar to Luke, 
which presents some one from among the crowd as requesting Jesus 
to support him in a lawsuit. This little episode is instructive as 
showing the way in which Jesus conducted himself in affairs per- 
taining to the external relations of political and civil life. He 
wholly refrained from such interference, and confined his labours 
entirely to the sphere of moral and®spiritual truth. From this no 
doubt arose an entire reformation of all political and civil rela- 
tions, produced by his labours, but at first he left the exter- 
nals unassailed, seeking only to establish the new life within. An 
important hint for all who are called to the work of the ministry! 
Interference with exterior relations characterises sectarian effort, 
which has to do not with men’s hearts but with dominion over them 
and their money. (Διμαστής occurs again at Acts vii. 27, 35, in the 
sense of arbiter, freely chosen umpire. Μεριστής, met with only here 
in the New Testament, means, according to Grotius, on the passage, 
qui familiz herciscunde, communi dividundo, aut finibus regundis 
arbiter sumitur.) To make the man who had so awkwardly inter- 
rupted his discourse, aware of his spiritual state, Jesus gives him in 


16 Luke XII. 13-21. 


the following verses a warning against avarice (πλεονεξία). We may 
conceive of a wish being entertained for the division of an inheritance 
without avarice, but in the case of this man, the very moment he 
chose for making his application to Christ shews that wordliness 
had repressed all sympathy with things spiritual, and even this en- 
tanglement is the root of avarice, a subjugation of our life to things 
earthly. On the construction of the latter half of verse 15, it must 
be observed, first, that undoubtedly αὐτοῦ is the right reading, and 
that in this entirely Hebraizing passage the pronouns must be 
explained after the usage of the Hebrew language. The idea 
would be clear if the words ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτοῦ were want- 
ing. By this additional clause some expositors (for example 
Paulus) have been induced erroneously to supply a te before the 
ἐκ τῶν kK, τ. A. so as to bring out this meaning—though one has 
many possessions, yet physical life is no part of his property, 7. e., 
he has no control over his life. This explanation seems to agree 
with the following parable, according to which even the rich man 
suddenly loses his bodily life. But verse 21 opens at once to our 
view, by the words, “being rich toward God” (πλουτῶν εἰς Θεόν) 
another conception of “life.” Only relatively is death a loss; for 
him who is rich toward God it isa gain. Life (ζωή) then is more 
correctly taken as denoting true life, in so far as it implies salvation. 
The true construction then is this: the thought is in substance 
completely expressed by the words ὅτι οὐκ ἐν τῷ περισσεύειν τινὶ ἡ ζωὴ 
αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, α man’s life consists not in abundance; the added ἐκ 
τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτοῦ, from his possessions, however, brings forward 
from the preceding περισσεύειν this additional idea, that no spiritual 
power can be ascribed to earthly possessions. ‘Two doctrines then 
are combined in one—“ Life consists not in superabundance,” and 
“from earthly possessions nothing spiritual can flow.” The follow- 
ing parable, therefore, teaches alike that earthly blessings may be 
lost, and the necessity of gathering imperishable treasures, ‘posses- 
sion of which brings true /ife, and which death is so far from taking 
away that it rather introduces us to their full enjoyment. 

Ver. 16-21.—Here follows a parable, whose object by no means 
is to warn against the abuse of riches, but against riches themselves, 
that is, against the soul’s placing its dependence on any transi- 
tory possession, This dependence may exist alike in him who has 
much and in him who has Jittle, although in the case of the for- 
mer the temptation is greater. In the same way, however, can 
true poverty of spirit (Matth. v. 3), exist amidst great possessions. 
According to the views of the world and the decisions of the law, 
the man whom Jesus brings forward in the parable does nothing 
unrighteous ; rather does he act wisely ; just as the man who from 
amidst the crowd wished to force his brother to a division of the in- 


Luxe XII. 16-81. 17 


heritance does nothing unlawful. But in both cases that natural 
life bore sway which cleaves to the creature, devoting to it its whole 
affections ; and in this condition man is dead, and transitory as the 
transitory objects of his love. With this state of soul the Saviour 
contrasts another, in which man sets his affections on things eternal, 
and holds and uses all his perishable possessions not for their own 
sake, but for the everlasting welfare of himself and others. This 
being his state he is πτωχός, a beggar (in spirit) even though he may 
have great possessions, but still as a beggar he is rich toward God. 
This expression is in the highest degree significant, when contrasted 
with the gathering treasures for oneself (Snoarpicery ἑαυτῷ). For im 
human effort everything depends on the final object towards which it 
is directed. In the ordinary strivings of sense, se// is the object of all 
exertion ; and this miserable self, with its perishable joy and peace, 
falls oe this very effort a prey to corruption ; ; In genuine effort, 
however, God the eternal, unchangeable, immortal (1 Tim. vi. 16), 
becomes the object, and while man therefore is laying up treasure 
for God (εἰς is not to be confounded with ἐν or πρός), he is at the 
same time laying up for himself, for where his treasure is, there also: 
is his real self. (Matth. vi. 21.) Compare the beautiful treatise of 
Clemens Alex. τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος, which contains a Commen- 
tary on the history at Mark x. 17, seq., full of rich and profound © 
thoughts. In the Pauline epistles compare 1 Cor. vii. 29, seq., where: 
"we are taught to possess as though we possessed not. (Ver. 16 

εὐφορέω, means to bear abundantly, fruitfully, fe the New Testa- 

ment it is found only here—ver. 19, I will s@¥ τῇ ψυχῇ pov. = αὐτός, 
self; it is, however, to be noted that the words σῶμα, ψυχή, and 
πνεῦμα are not ἘΠῚ indifferently for the person who is the subject 
of discourse, but discriminatingly, according as certain relations be- 
come particularly prominent. In this case, for example, neither 
σῶμα nor πνεῦμα could have been employed. According to the Divine 
ordinance nourishment is required by the body, τ the spirit 
(πνεῦμα) has relation to nobler than sensuous blessings and food. 
The soul (ψυχή), as being capable of education and development, 
can be alike lowered to flesh (σάρξ) and elevated to the spirit (πνεῦμα). 
In this very thing consequently lies the point of the thought, that 
he gave up to the. fleshly objects that soul which he should have con- 
secrated to spiritual.) 

Ver, 22-31.—In his subsequent discourse our Lord comes back 
to his disciples, alike resuming his discourse from ver, 12, and having 
reference to the contents of the parable. Warning them against 
anxious care for the world, he points his disciples to our heavenly 
Father as their true helper in every strait, and remarks that, while 
trusting in his aid, there was no necessity for such an anxious 
gathering together of the means of bodily support as is exhibited in 

Vor, Il.—2 


18 hue XI, 22-32. 


the case of the rich man. The whole discourse, it may be added, is 
founded on the supposition, that circumstances might well give 
occasion and temptation enough for cherishing such anxieties. 
The particulars have already been more fully explained at Matth. 
vi. 25-82. 

Ver. 82.—With the μὴ φοβοῦ, fear not, the discourse obviously 
returns to the subject of ver. 4, where the Redeemer, styling 
the disciples his friends, exhorts them μὴ φοβηθῆτε, fear ye not. The 
confidential address, however, ‘little flock” (μικρὸν ποίμνιον), with 
which the foregoing φίλοι μου (ver. 4), may be set down as parallel, 
seems unsuited to the idea of a conversation before the multitude 
(ver. 1). At least, in John xv. 14, 15, where the Lord also calls his 
disciples his friends, it is restricted to his own most immediate 
circle. But in what follows, there immediately (ver. 33) occurs the 
most definite reference to ver. 21, which words again were addressed 
to one amidst the crowd (ver. 13), so that it is not possible to divide 
this discourse into separate elements, as spoken (before the people 
and before the disciples) at different times. It is impossible, espe- 
cially because of ver. 41. We can only therefore suppose, that the 
disciples immediately surrounded Jesus, and partly his words were 
not at all designed for the multitude ; while as to another part, he 
perhaps even intended that to some his words should be completely 
audible, and all should receive at least their general impression. 
Thus the conclusion of his address (ver. 54, seq.), which addresses 
the multitude itself, charges them with hypocrisy, with a warning 
against which the discourse opened. (Compare ver. 1 with ver. 56.) 
Even the marked, and at first sight strange separation of the “ little 
flock” from the great multitude (retained under the entanglements 
of Pharisaic influence), was perhaps designed on this account by the 
Saviour, and although many of the particular allusions were unin- 
telligible to the crowd (as, for instance, the account which follows 
of watching for his own return, must certainly have been unintelli- 
gible), yet far less stress is laid on these than on the impress of 
rebuke and reproof borne by the whole discourse. This must have 
driven men to a decision for or against him; the better disposed 
would attach themselves to the little flock, the rest went over en- 
tirely to his enemies. And this circumstance itself shews that the 
discourse is rightly placed in the account of the last journey to 
Jerusalem, for, only towards the close of the ministry of Jesus would 
such a demand for a decisive choice have been appropriate. 

The idea of the flock, however, implies a reference not merely to 
their connexion with Jesus as the shepherd (John x. 12), but also, 
as the μικρόν, little, indicates, to the relation of the disciples to the 
world. The expression reminds us of the relation of sheep to 
wolves (Matth. x. 16). Tocomfort them, as it were, amidst the suf- 


Luxe XII. 32, 33. 19 


ferings and persecutions of the world, the Saviour promises that the 
Father shall bestow on them the kingdom, which as the opposite of 
κόσμος (ver. 30) in its widest application, inwardly as well as out- 
wardly, denotes here a state of things, in which God’s will is 
supreme, and in its supremacy insures the welfare of the good. 
Most appropriately, however, does the giving (δοῦναι) here corre- 
spond with the seeking (ζητεῖν), ver. 31. For it was only with this, 
that the promise of outward aid and support was primarily associ- 
ated, and now the Saviour adds that the exalted object of their striv- 
ing was already their own. The preterite* here is to be retained in 
its literal sense, for this reason, that the Saviour views the disciples 
as the first bearers of that new life which he was called to bring 
into the world, and looks on them in the election of grace. If Jesus 
speaks here quite generally, without mentioning the son of perdi- 
tion (as in the similar passage, John xvi. 12), this was doubtless 
done, partly because he spoke in presence of the multitude, partly 
because the time of Judas was not yet past, and so there still 
remained the hope of winning him, and finally it might yet be said 
that even Judas was chosen, but made not his election sure (2 
Peter i. 10), and so fell through his unfaithfulness. 

Ver, 33.—In the following verses (down to verse 36) the 
Redeemer subjoins admonitions to the effect that they should walk 
as children of the kingdom, and members of the little flock. The 
picture is carried out in contrast with the preceding representation 
of the worldling anxious for the interests of the body and of self. 
The latter amasses for himself possessions and goods, the former 
sells them; the latter seeks ease and pleasure (ver. 19), the former 
stands amidst struggles and conflicts (ver. 35). It may be a ques- 
tion, however, in what sense the exhortation expressed in general 
terms, πωλήσατε τὰ ὑπάρχοντα ὑμῶν, sell your possessions, is to be 
understood. In the first place, we are not to suppose here any gen- 
eral admonition to Christians, otherwise 1 Cor. vii. 29, seq. would 
contradict it. Spiritual freedom from all earthly possessions, is 
assuredly to be considered as the highest aim of every member of 
the kingdom ; by it alone can the outward act acquire real signifi- 
cance. A second question, however, certainly arises, whether the 
Lord means here to give his disciples a special precept ; and this 
according to Matth. xix. 27, appears by no means improbable.} 
According to Matth. xix. 21 also, Jesus, in certain cases where a too 
strong attachment to worldly possessions was manifested, appears to 


* Εὐδόκησεν, was pleased.—[K. 

+ Luke xxii. 36, however, shews that even on the part of the disciples themselves the 
expression πάντα ἀφήκαμεν is to be taken with limitations. Compare also cr John xxi. 
3. In the parallel passage at Matth. vi. 19, only the negative side is brought forward te 
view, μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. } 


20 Luke XII. 33-36. 


have required the entire giving up of these goods, and to have 
meant his injunction to be understood in good earnest, and in a 
literal sense. Yet, in any case, the necessity for such external 
renunciation must be of subordinate importance, for all outward 
blessings being as Clemens Alex. (in the treatise above referred 
to) says, κτήματα, possessions, and therefore to be held possession 
of, so may they lawfully be thus held, provided they do not 
acquire the mastery. In the case of the disciples, however, it 
might be of importance that in this respect as in others they 
should be seen resembling their Lord. The remaining words of 
ver. 33 (as also ver. 34) agree entirely with the verses, Matth. 
vi. 20, 21, already explained. Instead of the transitory, the im- 
perishable is enjoined on us as the sole object of our endeavours, 
inasmuch as the heart (along with the soul which centres in the 
heart), identifies itself, as it were, with the objects sought after. 
The only thing peculiar to Luke is the added clause, “make to 
yourselves purses that wax not old” (ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς βαλάντια μὴ 
παλαιούμενα), in which the purse (see Luke x. 4) is put for its con- 
tents. The treasures which grow not old, therefore, are equivalent 
to the Eternal. (The word ἀνέκλειπτος, inexhaustible, is in the 
New Testament found only here.) 

Ver. 35, 36.—In regard to what follows in the account of Luke, 
there occur kindred elements at Matth xxiv. 42, seq. The two pas- 
sages are so Closely akin, that we cannot well suppose Christ to 
have twice spoken the same words at different periods, and in differ- 
ent circumstances. It thus becomes a question, which of the two 
Evangelists has preserved them in their original connexion. ΤῸ 
me it seems again in this case probable, that (as was remarked 
generally on Luke xii. 1) Luke’s narrative is the more exact. For 
his whole account is so peculiar, that it evidently reports to us 
an actual conversation, with its various turns and interruptions, 
while it is equally obvious that Matthew (ch. xxiv.) combines por- 
tions of discourses which all refer to the same topic, namely, 
the second coming of the Lord. The only indication that Luke, 
or the author whose account he used, has introduced any for- 
eion matter, is the obscurity of the connexion, and the fact that 
a reference is made in what follows to the second coming, without 
its having been previously alluded to. But the connecting thread 
which runs through the whole, though subtle, is by no means want- 
ing. For, all that is said from ver. 4 and onwards of the persecu- 
tions awaiting the disciples, and from ver, 22 of their entire separa- 
tion from worldly possessions, and striving after eternal blessings, 
was based upon the idea that the Lord’s protecting presence was to 
cease, so that the term “‘ little flock” (ver. 32) must be so explained 
that the flock is viewed as bereft of their shepherd, and hence 


Luxe XII, 35, 36. 21 


exposed to all the assaults of the enemy. With this leading idea 
is closely connected the following exhortation to the disciples to 
continue faithful through their coming season of abandonment, and 
the assurance that their faithfulness would be rewarded by the 
Lord at his return. Granting then, that in the pfeceding context, 
no express reference is made to his return, yet the abandonment of 
the disciples presupposes the departure of their Lord, and this 
departure presupposes necessarily that one day he shall return, and 
these two ideas form the supports on which the whole connexion of 
the passage rests. The multitude, who equally heard this address, 
must indeed have failed to understand the idea of his return, which 
was difficult even to the disciples, but it was not for them that the 
discourse was primarily intended, and then, figurative though it was, 
it bore a meaning intelligible to all, as admonishing them faithfully 
to adhere to the true Lord. This exhortation formed at the same 
time a warning against hypocrisy (ver. 56), which was greatly 
needed by the multitude, who listened indeed eagerly to Jesus, but 
from fear of the Pharisees shrank from a decision in his favour. 
(Compare on Matth, xxiv. 51, where instead of the ἄπιστοι, faithless, 
in Luke there stands the more exact ὑποκριταί, hypocrites.) The 
principal thoughts in the following verses, in so far as they relate to 
the Parousia, will be found explained more fully at Matth. xxiv., to 
which passage we now refer. Verses 35 and 36, like ver. 33, retain 
primarily the preceptive form, Their ideas Luke has modified in a 
peculiar way. The general comparison of servants who wait for 
their Lord, is more nearly defined by the circumstance, that he is 
represented as returning from the feast (ἀναλύσει ἐκ τῶν γάμων). 
We cannot therefore view this passage as parallel to Matth. xxv. 1, 
seq., for, in that chapter, the bridegroom is represented as coming to 
the marriage feast, and the virgins as waiting for him. The simili- 
tude of the marriage feast points assuredly to the relation of Christ 
to his church (compare Matth.ix.15). To the church in its wider 
acceptation, belong indeed all the members of Christ’s body, and 
among them of course the apostles. But the individual mem- 
bers may be conceived as sustaining various relations, according to 
their various predominant traits of character. Now they are con- 
ceived as active (δοῦλοι), now as receptive, or contemplative {(παρ- 
θένοι), and the figurative modes of expression are modified accord- 
ingly. (Compare more detailed remarks on Matth. xxv. 1, seq.; 14, 
seq.) Here the apostles are represented as men of ectivity, and 
hence they appear as the stewards of God’s house, in the absence 
of the Lord at the heavenly banquet, that is, at his union with the 
church above, analogous to whichis his union with the church of the 
saints on earth at his return—his coming to the marriage-feast 
(Ὀσφύες περιεζωσμέναι, loins girded about, and λύχνοι καιόμενοι, lamps 


22 LUKE XII. 35-38. 


burning, are the usual figurative expressions denoting to be prepared 
and ready, ἕτοιμος γίνεσθαι, ver. 40. Compare Jer. 1. 17; 1 Pet. i. 
13 ; Matth. xxv. 1). 

Ver. 37, 38.—To this exhortation to a faithful decision in 
favour of the Lord (the opposite of ὑπόκρισις, ver. 46, compared 
with Matth. xxiv. 51), is subjoined the thanks and the bless- 
ing bestowed on such faithfulness. First of all, the return of the 
Lord is represented as wholly uncertain, to be looked for in every 
watch of the night, and the reward of faithfulness as equally great, - 
whatever the period of time over which it is extended. (This re- 
minds us of the parable, Matth. xx. 1, seq., in which the labourers, 
though called at different periods, yet receive equal recompense. 
For details consult the passage itself.) Naturally the later coming 
of the Lord, and the longer waiting which it involves, seem the 
more difficult. (It is intentionally that no mention is made of the 
first night-watch, for the marriage feast itself falls within it. As, 
however, allusion is made only to the second and third, Jesus seems 
here to have made use of the old division of the night amongst the 
Jews into three night-watches. Compare on Matth. xiv. 25.)—The 
description of the faithful servants is altogether peculiar ; these 
ideas are found only in Luke. The Lord reverses their relative posi- 
tions ; he becomes the servant, they the masters. In a passage, 
which also is peculiar to himself (chap. xvi. 7-10), Luke has 
described the usual practice, that when a servant returns from 
labour, his master first requires him to attend to his personal com- 
fort, and then permits him to take his own food, without thanking 
him for these exertions, inasmuch as he has only done what he was 
bound to do. The contrast of the two passages may be explained 
in this way, that the aim of Luke xvii. T, seq., is to bring forward 
the humble, unassuming state of mind of those truly faithful servants 
of the Lord who say “‘we are unprofitable servants” (δοῦλοι ἀχρεῖοί 
ἐσμεν). The passage before us, on the other hand, brings to view 
the self-humbling nature of the Son of man, so rich in grace, who 
not only places his servants on a level with himself, but sets himself 
beneath them. Thus, while the former passage gives expression to 
justice, that before us expresses grace, in regard to the relation of 
the servants to their Lord. The form, however, under which our 
Lord’s self-sacrificing love for his servants is here set forth, is bor- 
rowed from that promise which runs through all Scripture, of a 
great feast which, at the establishment of Ged’s kingdom, our Lord 
shall hold with his people. (Compare on Matth. viii. 11.) This 
δεῖπνον τοῦ γάμου τοῦ dpviov (Rey. xix. 9) has its type in that last 
meal of Jesus when he instituted the sacrament of the Supper, 
and according to John xii. 1, seq., the Saviour acted on that occa- 
sion altogether in harmony with what is here promised; he 


Luxr XII. 37-40. 23 


conducted himself like the servant, and considered his disciples as 
the masters. What then took place, was an outward type of what 
in the end of the day, the Lord shall yet do to his own people, who 
until death remain true to his commandments. (or further details 
see on Matth. xxvi. 29.) With this the Saturnalia of the ancients 
may not inappropriately be compared, which also in symbolic form 
gave expression to the idea that mankind should one day form a 
family of brethren, Thus even the Lord of heaven is not ashamed 
to present himself as the first-born among many brethren (Rom. 
wi 29; Heb, αι. 11), 

Ver. 39, 40.—The Saviour, however, adds (modifying the pre- 
viously used comparison of the servant waiting for his Lord) as a 
warning, that the time of the master’s return is altogether uncer- 
tain ; it must therefore be expected at any moment (ver. 35, 40, as 
parallel to ver. 38), and he may appear at that instant, when, least 
of all, men anticipate his return. (On this thought, so important to 
our understanding the doctrine of the second coming, compare the 
more detailed remarks at Matth. xxiv. 45, 44.) Here, however, the 
comparison of a master at a distance, whose return is waited for by 
his servants, whom he had left to manage the household affairs 
(compare ver. 42, seq.), 1s conjoined with another, which serves more 
fully to bring out the unexpected nature of his coming—the figure, 
namely, of the householder, who guarding against the assault of a 
thief, and not knowing the hour of his approach, must be continually 
on the watch. That this comparison has absolutely no meaning, 
beyond expressing the idea of suddenness, is certainly not probable. 
It is in the first place, used in the New Testament so commonly 
with reference to the return of Christ (Matth. xxiv. 43; 2 Peter 
ii. 10; Rev. ii.8; xvi 15), that we cannot fail to suppose some 
special reference to be implied in the expression. Nor, to express 
the mere idea of suddenness, could we fail to inquire why some nobler 
comparison—of which so many must have presented themselves— 
was not selected. And, finally, the exact carrying out of the figure 
in some passages (for example here and at Matth. xxiv. 43), which 
place the master of the house in opposition to the thief, and depict 
the breaking in of the latter, is not calculated to support the 
opinion which refuses to lay any stress on the features of the figure 
itself. Rather does the remark made on Matth. ix. 16, apply here, 
that our Lord frequently uses figurative expressions taken from his 
enemies’ point of view. In this case, the figure of the thief is taken 
from the feelings of those who, amidst the life and movements of 
earth, view themselves as in their own proper home. These take 
fright at the coming of the Son of man, as at the inbreaking of a 
thief ; through him they believe it is all over with their (supposed) 
possessions. Here, then, the feeling of all worldly-minded men, ig 


94 Ἷ Lint T3946. 


conceived, as it were concentrated in the householder, under whom we 
can (according to Matth. xii. 29 ; Luke xi. 21) understand no other 
than the prince of this world (ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου). Thus 
understood, the figure acquires, on the one hand, its own definite 
meaning, while on “the other, there is also assigned a ground for the 
uncertainty of our Lord’s ¥¢turn, which will be more ae remarked 
upon at Matth. xxiv. 48. is difficult, however, to see how this 
comparison of the thief can be faterwoven with that of the servants, 
as is done in this passage, and at Matth. xxiv. 43. The ground of 
it is probably this. The Apostles themselves, although on the one 
side they are the representatives of the kingdom of God (ver. 82), 
appear on the other, as by no means removed from the region of 
the world—they still bear the worldly element within them (1 John 
ii, 16), and require for this reason very earnest admonitions to 
fidelity, and warnings against unfaithfulness (ver, 9, 10, 47, 48). In 
so far, however, as the disciples themselves still belong to the do- 
minion of the world, in so far do they also share its character, in 
looking with dread to the manifestation of divinity ; and for 
this reason could the Lord here conjoin two things apparently 
foreign to each other.* Like the disciples, every believer bears a 
double character; as a member of the kingdom of God, he is a 
servant of God ; in so far, however, as the old man and consequently 
the world lives within him, he carries in himself that which is enmity 
against God, and in this position, he must partly long for, and 
partly dread the coming of the Lord, as that which shall reveal the 
hidden secrets of men. From the Saviour’s exalted point of con- 
templation; therefore, he viewed each individual in his entire rela- 
tions, and found the key of heaven and hell, of bliss and anguish, 
in the heart of each. 

Ver. 41.—It is easy to explain how Peter should here have put 
the question, whether this was spoken to them alone, or to all (even 
to the ὄχλος, ver. 1). For the discourse had in fact acquired a gen- 
eral character, inasmuch as that part of the disciples’ nature had 
been brought into view, through which they were still connected 
with the world. Peter’s question, therefore, in this connexion, is a 
plain testimony to the direct originality of the whole narrative. 

Ver. 42-45—The Saviour withheld a definite reply to the ques- 
tion of Peter, as the circumstances required. He spake in presence 
of a great multitude of people, and his intention was that a different 
impression should be produced by his words on his disciples, and on 
the crowd ; he could not therefore answer with absolute precision to 
the somewhat indiscreet question of Peter. Add to this, that an 

* Schleiermacher (on Luke, p. 189) seems to me altogether groundlessly to doubt the 


authenticity of the connexion here. It is wholly improbable that this verse alone should 
be an interpolation in a discourse which hangs so closely together. 


LuKeE XII. 46-48. 25 


absolutely definite decision would not have been founded on truth. 
For, however certain it is, that in the church of Christ every mem- 
ber should not be a master (James 111. 1), yet, on the other hand, it 
is no Jess established that in a certain respect every believer is a 
servant of God, and must watch for the coming of the Lord. <Ac- 
cordingly, Jesus so answers the question, that in a full and literal 
sense he applies what was said to the disciples as the representatives 
of those called to be instructors in the church.* In the next place, 
however, he transfers it to all, ver. 48, in so far as they can be con- 
sidered as servants, even granting that their intelligence is developed 
in a lower measure. In the following verses, the sentiment of ver. 
36 is further carried out, and in such a way as to delineate those 
servants who, holding sway over the other servants, regulate the 
whole household economy. In this, the reference to the Apostles 
cannot be mistaken. First, the fidelity, and then the unfaithfulness 
of such servants is depicted with their consequences: but as to 
these we reserve the particulars till we come to the exposition of 
Matth. xxiv. 45-51, which verses closely agree with those before us. 
Although, as was remarked above, we in this instance again give 
the preference to the position of these words assigned them by Luke, 
as the original one; yet, in ver. 46, the reading μετὰ τῶν ἀπίστων 
must yield to that of Matthew, who has μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν. In 
this reading the original expression seems to be preserved, and in the 
text of Luke the more general idea seems falsely to have crept in. 
The slight critical authorities which favour ὑποκριτῶν in the text of 
Luke can claim meanwhile no regard. he reference to the hypo- 
erites accords strikingly with ver. 1, as compared with verse ὅθ. In 
this expression, moreover, preserved by Matthew, we may find an 
indication that the words in Matthew are borrowed from the very 
connexion, as given here, a connexion which points so naturally to 
hypocrisy. 

Ver. 47, 48.—These verses also, in which the contrast between 
two classes of servants is set prominently forth, belong exclusively 
to Luke. They are most intimately connected with the rest of the 
discourse, and plainly go to prove that its several parts form one 
compact whole. ‘There is especially an entire correspondence be- 
tween them and verses 9 and 10. As the admonition to confess 
Christ is there combined with the warning against denying him, 
and the degree of guilt is represented as determined by the degree 
of knowledge, so it is in this passage. (To the adjectives πολλάς 
and ὀλίγας, we must supply πληγάς.) The contrast, however, 
seems remarkable, and one is tempted to interpret the μὴ γνούς, 
one having no complete and sufficient knowledge; for, accord- 


᾿ς * Tt is remarkable what weighty warning may be drawn from vy. 45, 46, for those whe 
claim to sit in the chair of Peter.—[E. 


A» 
, 


26 Luxe XII. 48-50. 


ing to the principle here laid down, a man who knew nothing 
‘ could not be punished in any degree. But it is better to leave 
the contrast between knowing and not knowing in its full force, 
and to lay the emphasis, instead, upon δοῦλος, servant. The very 
idea of a servant implies dependence on his Lord’s will, and an 
obligation to make exertions for the sake of that will. Even in 
ignorance itself there is involved the guilt of him who knows not 
the will of his Lord, only, it is naturally less than his who knowingly 
transeresses the Lord’s will. These words reach equally, in this 
way, the disciples, who were acquainted with the will of our Lord, 
and those persons who stood farther off, though well inclined towards 
him, who took delight indeed in his beautiful parables and discourses 
full of wisdom, but hypocritically refused to enquire after the will of 
Christ. The general maxim which concludes ver. 48 is found also 
at Matth. xxv. 29, but certainly with such a modification of the 
thought as to make it probable that in that passage of Matthew it 
stands also in its original connexion. The words, in their entire 
nature, also easily admit of various applications. The idea that the 
final judgment of men depends, as its condition, on the extent of 
their powers and their ight (comp. on Matth. xxv. 14, seq.), is, by 
way of parallelism, repeated in both members of the sentence. No 
new trait is added in the second half, so that the repetition has no 
object except to make the thought more impressive. Compared, 
however, with the foregoing ‘‘servant that knew,” and “did not 
know,” the maxim forms a step in advance ; for the servant that 
knew is not, as such, one to whom much is given ; he may have only 
a single small talent entrusted to him. Besides knowing his Lord’s 
will, therefore, is added still another point as determining the judg- 
ment pronounced, namely, a man’s being furnished with greater or 
lesser powers, and having a wider or narrower sphere of action 
allotted to him. 

Ver. 49, 50.—At first sight it might seem to the reader that the 
thread of connexion had here wholly escaped him. The Saviour 
comes to speak of himself personally, his destiny, his sufferings, 
and the effect of his appearance as destroying false peace. These 
ideas seem, however, in no way to belong to the subjects here 
treated of. But on carefully weighing the leading thoughts of the 
passage, the following train of ideas presents itself, making it in the 
highest degree probable that this portion forms also an integral part 
of the whole. The last section of the discourse of Jesus conveys a 
very weighty, we might say, alarming truth. The consciousness that 
our responsibility increases with the talents entrusted to us, might 
awaken anxiety on the part of the disciples. This anxiety the Lord 
alleviates by placing himself at their side with the view of impart- 
ing to entire humanity a higher life, but with the prospect of 


Luxe XII. 49-53. 27 


encountering for this very reason the greatest labours. Before each 
of his disciples, therefore, the Saviour places as inevitable, the 
necessity of entering into a severe struggle, for this is involved in 
his own appearance. The very thing indeed rebuked by him in his 
final address to the multitude, which included the conflict-fearing 
adherents of Jesus, is this, that they stood still in a state of hypo- 
critical indecision ; he counsels therefore that they should in season 
become reconciled to their adversary. According to this explanation, 
some connecting ideas may have been omitted, but everything in 
the discourse stands essentially connected. Luke alone has the 
words I came to cast fire, etc., of ver. 49 ; they contain a reference 
to passages of the Old Testament, such as Is. iv. 4. The fire 
(comp. Matth. iii. 11), denotes here the higher spiritual element of 
life which Jesus came to introduce into this earth, with reference to 
its mighty effects in quickening all that is akin to it, and destroying 
all that is opposed. To cause this element of life to take up its 
abode on earth, and wholly to pervade human hearts with its 
warmth, was the exalted destination of the Redeemer. (The ex- 
pression τί θέλω, εἰ is best explained, as Kuinol has done, from the 
Hebrew. As this use of εἰ corresponds with tx, so does τί with rm». 
Comp. Song of Solomon viii. 4.) The true human sensibility, far 
removed from all stoical indifference, with which Christ shrank in 
dread from that hard path of suffering which lay before him, finds 
expression in the wish that his work were already accomplished, that 
the fire might be kindled without this suffering. (Comp. on 
Matth. xxvi. 89.) The suffering itself is denoted by baptism (Ga7- 
tiga), on Which word compare the details at the parallel passages, 
Matth. xx. 22; Mark x. 88, (The term συνέχεσθαι, constringi, 
straitened, distressed, is used with reference to bodily sufferings 
[Matth. iv. 24; Luke iv. 38]; but is also applied to mental dis- 
tress and agony [Luke vii. 37]. Comp. as to the pain of Jesus’ 
soul, and terror in prospect of his sufferings, on Matth. xxvi. 
of, 566.) 

Ver. 51-53, depict further the strife-awakening tendency of the 
Messiah’s ministry, entirely in accordance with Matth. x. 34, seq., 
which passage should here be compared. The Jews had been ac- 
customed to associate with their conceptions of the Messiah, the 
idea of everlasting peace to themselves (5 ον Is, ix. 5); at most 
they thought of him contending as a warrior, only against the 
heathen. Instead of this, Jesus led them into conflict against the 
sin which they found within and around them. Their admission of 
this separating element was the condition necessary to their re- 
ceiving his peace. 

* Or perhaps ‘“ How would I that it were already kindled!” 7. ¢, that the agony 
which its kindliag must occasion were over—[K. 


ΕῚ 


28 LuKeE XII. 54-57. 


Ver. 54, 55.—There comes in here, most appropriately, the 
transition in which Jesus addresses himself to the people. This 
stirring up of confusion and strife in the moral world through the 
Saviour’s ministry, might well serve as an indication to men of its 
nature, Physical events are here used by the Lord as figures to 
illustrate those mighty spiritual movements, to effect and conduct 
which was the great design of his coming. The connexion of the 
verses with what goes before is so close, that we cannot doubt the 
words stand in their original place ; but at Matth. xvi, 2, 3, the 
same thought is also found most appropriately, though in a some- 
what altered form. This comparison, obviously presenting itself, 
and full of profound meaning, may have been more than once em- 
ployed by Jesus. (Instead of νεφέλη and ὄμβρος, Matth. speaks of 
νότος and καύσων [that is the glowing heat which the south wind is 
wont to occasion in Palestine, for which reason in the LXX., καύσων 
is used as equivalent to stp. Hos. xii. 2]—of εὐδία and χειμών, bad 
and good weather, which may usually be known from the state of 
the heavens at morning and evening. He employs also the expres- 
sion πυῤῥάζειν to describe the colour and form of the clouds which 
the rising or setting sun irradiates. The parallel word στυγνάζω, 
lower, from orvyvéc, austerus, denotes that dark, lowering aspect of 
the sky, out of which the storm (χειμών) arises. This expression 
stands opposed to the εὐδία, a pure, clear, cloudless state of the at- 
mosphere. Suidas, ἡ ἄνευ ἀνέμων ἡμέρα. It is found in the New 
Testament only at Matth. xvi. 2.) 

Ver. 56, 57.—The address ὑποκριταί, hypocrites, points markedly 
_back to the commencement of the discourse at ver. 1. The hypo- 
-erisy of the Pharisees is here charged on the whole people, in so far 
as they suffered themselves to be prevailed on by that sect to refuse 
following out the impressions made on their souls and give honour 
to the truth. The expression implies thus the possibility of their 
attaining true insight and a right decision, a possibility, however, 
not realized from their cowardice and dread of conflict. (With the 
πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς 18 contrasted in Matth. the σημεῖα τῶν καιρῶν, a 
characteristic expression, which ascribes to the spiritual world a 
physiognomy similar to what might be traced in the external. The 
great coming events of the spiritual world announce themselves to 
the eye of the soul just as the physical processes of the visible 
world do to the meteorologist.) That v. 57 introduces another 
thought, is shewn at once by the expression τί δὲ καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν od 
κρίνετε, and why do ye not of yourselves judge? etc. This, how- 
ever, conveys the same idea formerly treated of, only under another 
figure. Every act of judging (κρίνειν, separating), presupposes a 
higher nature from which the discriminating act (requiring at once 
intelligence and power) proceeds, and a lower from which must be 


Luxe XII. 56-59. 29 


removed that intermixture which demands the discriminating effort. 
The separation may be effected by the man himself (through the 
help of the Spirit received by him), and in that case he is delivered 
from the future judgment. (1 Cor, xi. 31.) But this very carrying 
out of a judement originating with the man himself, and on his 
own behalf, is a pure determination in favour of what is good ; it 
is the opposite of hypocrisy, the guilt of which Jesus charged upon 
the multitude, just for this reason, that they cowld not in his minis- 
try recognise the entrance of an unknown spiritual power, inasmuch 
as they did not wish to acknowledge it, for they had not admitted it 
freely and deeply enough into their own souls, to enable it there to 
carry out its work. Thus the word δίκαιον, right, in so far as it 
forms the transition to the following parable, may denote in one 
respect the truth in a matter of legal dispute, but in another 
respect, in the highest and objective sense, 10 means that which ts 
righteous, as it was perfectly manifested in Christ. Κρίνειν, how- 
ever, here, is equivalent to διακρίνειν (Matth. xvi. 8), or δοκιμάζειν 
(Luke xii. 56), as every putting to the proof presupposes a partition, 
a separation into the original component parts, and the value thus 
assigned to them. 

Ver. 58, 59.—The following parabolic discourse had been in- 
corporated by Matth. v. 25, 26, into the Sermon on the Mount. It 
would not in itself be at all improbable that such a form of expres- 
sion should be repeated, but the general character of the Sermon 
on the Mount, and the connexion of this passage in particular, may 
well make it somewhat unlikely that the words in Matthew are in 
their proper place. [9] Here indeed the course of thought at first 
sight is not easily traced, but it appears all the more close when we 
penetrate into the heart of the discourse. That an idea so rich, how- 
ever, and manifold in its relations, should in Matthew assume a 
modification of its precise original scope as here given, is in no 
respect surprising ; for one special advantage of the parabolic and 
figurative style lies in this very adaptation to different relations. 
As respects the connexion in the present passage, the preceding 
ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν κρίνετε, gudge of yourselves, conducts obviously to the 
idea expressed in the following verses. “‘ Suffer not yourselves to 
be judged by any other, but judge ye yourselves.” The man who 
agrees with his opponent, judges himself in so far that he does his 
enemy right as against himself, and satisfies him in his demands. 
The Saviour thus manifestly admonishes his hearers to take account 
of all moral claims on them (the ἀντίδικος, adversary, represents the 
law), and to bring themselves into harmony with them in their 
earthly life, that they may not stand a sterner ordeal before the holy 
representative of these in eternity. If, however, the law appears 
here in the light of the enemy from whom man is to free himself 


‘ 30 Luxe XIL. 58,59; XIII. 1. 


(ἀπαλλάττεσθαι dn’ αὐτοῦ), it is viewed in that relation in which it 
ministers to the accusing principle generally. The accusation loses 
its power, when the sinful man abandons the defence of his evil case, 
with self-accusations recognises the truth, and appeals from the 
righteousness to the grace of God. If he fail, however, here in 
delivering himself by true repentance* from the trammels of the 
accusation, the judgment strikes him when it is too late. The 
magistrate (ἄρχων) and judge (κριτής) are clearly so related to each 
other in the parable, that the former denotes the inferior magistracy 
of the city, the latter the judge in a court of higher jurisdiction.t 
In resolving the figure accordingly, κριτής, yudge, means the Su- 
preme Judge, God himself, ἄρχων, magistrate, an earthly power 
representing the unseen righteousness of God, for example, the 
apostles in their spiritual authority. It is next mentioned as a 
termination of the affair fitted to inspire terror, that the guilty 
one is cast into prison. (The πράκτωρ of Luke corresponds to 
the ὑπηρέτης of Matthew. The expression occurs only here in the 
sense of exactor, Ὁ35, from πράσσειν, Luke 111. 18. Instead of xod- 
ράντης = quadrans, which occurs in Matthew, Luke has λεπτόν scil. 
νόμισμα. Mark xii. 42 reckons two lepta to one quadrans.) As to 
the meaning of the prison, and the period assigned for his being 
delivered from it, comp. on Matth. v. 26, xvii. 84 Here the 
whole is meant to enforce the earnest use of present privileges, and 
make apparent the danger to which those exposed themselves who 
heard Jesus, expressed pleasure in his words, but under the rebukes 
of their own conscience, refused, from dread of the contest, with 
their whole hearts to devote themselves to him and his cause. 


§ 11. ConTINUATION OF THE CONFERENCE. EXHORTATION TO 
REPENTANCE, 


(Luke xiii. 1-9.) 


The connexion of what follows with the preceding, is again very 
intimate, and the account bears the same traces of originality. For, 
as Jesus was thus speaking (ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ), some individuals 
from amongst the crowd came up and reported an act of violence 


* For this reason there follows immediately at Luke xiii. 3, 5, the command, μετα- 
νοεῖτε, 

+ Compare on Matth. v. 21. 

1 The subtle distinctions by which Olshausen attempts (Matth. xviii. 34) to disprove 
the endlessness of the punishment here implied, cannot weigh against the direct and ob- 
vious import of the passages. The language, “thou shalt not come out till thou hast 
paid the uttermost farthing,” implies in its spirit a hopeless state. It is as much as to say, 
“thou shalt never come out—not till the last particle of satisfaction is rendered to eternal 
justice."—[K. 


LuKE XIII. 1-3. 81 


of which Pilate had been guilty. They understood Jesus in his 
speech quite correctly thus far, that he spoke of the unfaithfulness 
of men, and the punishments which in this way they brought on 
themselves. But, according to the usual evil practice of the human 
heart, they did not, with penitential feelings, take home that un- 
faithfulness to themselves, but applied it to others, and in the 
murder of these Galileans discovered the infliction of a judgment 
from God. The view which holds sufferings of every kind to be the 
punishment of sin, is certainly by no means false, for without sin 
there would be no suffering amongst men. *The error les in this, 
that sin and punishment are not so distributed below that each 
instance of suffering on the part of an individual must be the con- 
sequence of his own sin. Hence we cannot from such suffering infer 
the antecedent sin of the sufferer, but rather the sin of the whole 
body to which he belongs. Hence, the Saviour is at pains to awaken 
in all an equal consciousness of guilt, and prevent them from regard- 
ing those on whom some special suffering was inflicted as more guilty 
than themselves, or than the rest of the community. By this mode 
of explanation, sympathy for all suffering is awakened, and true 
repentance called forth for sin, not only our own, but that of the 
human race, with which the Saviour specially had to do. For that 
sympathy is the consciousness of our need of an atonement, and 
hence the indispensable condition of our receiving those higher 
powers of life for the overthrow of sin, which Jesus came to bring 
into the world. Fyrom the course, however, which the conversation 
thus took, it is clear that chapter xiii, is a discourse on repentance, 
addressed to the people, and an admonition to entire decision on the 
part of the disciples ; yet the discourse is peculiarly stern and strict 
in its character, as it was the Saviour’s last, and his public ministry 
was now drawing to a close. 

Ver. 1-3.—Of the fact here mentioned there is historically no- 
thing known. Amidst the numberless cruelties which the Romans 
permitted themselves to inflict on the Jews, the ‘massacre of a few 
nameless Galileans disappeared like a drop in the sea. (The ex- 
pression ἔμιξε τὸ αἷμα αὐτῶν μετὰ τῶν ϑυσιῶν, mixed their blood, εἴο., 
is frightful. It would seem that the sacred moment of sacrifice 
must exclude every injury to the offerer. But that God should 
permit the very death of the offerers appears to betoken frightful 
guilt on their part. Still, the expression suggests the idea that 
those put to death fell, as it were, like victims offered up, as, ac- 
cording to a general feeling prevalent among all nations, the foun- 
dations of which lie deep, the malefactor about to be executed is 
viewed as a sacer,a man devoted, offered up for the general sin 
which in him came out into glaring manifestation.) That these 
slain men were sinners (ἁμαρτωλοί) Jesus does not deny, only, they 


32 Luxe XIII. 1-9. 


were not more so than others (παρὰ πάντας). It may have been that 
those put to death had committed some criminal act, but that would 
not alter the matter, The germ of such acts lay dormant in all 
hearts, and of this the Saviour wished to make them aware. The 
only way to escape such. punishments here or elsewhere, is through 
repentance, which must bear reference not only to actual sins, but 
above all, to the habit of sinning. 

Ver. 4, 5.—A similar example of sudden destruction which had 
overtaken certain Jews is farther adduced by Jesus himself. High- 
teen persons had been crushed by the fall of a building. As to this 
incident also, history gives no farther information. Such an accident 
the Saviour also teaches us here, should not be used as an occasion for 
harsh judgments on the subjects of the calamity, but as an induce- 
ment to individual repentance. Thus the Saviour would by no 
means have such occurrences as accidental, physical transactions, 
carefully kept apart from all connexion with the moral world. On 
the contrary, he teaches here, and all Scripture teaches, that sin and 
suffering stand closely associated ; but this connexion must not be 
viewed as individual, but general, for thus viewed, each affliction 
brings a blessing. (Πύργος = $33, means any large high, isolated 
edifice [Matth. xxi. 33]. As the building here is described as 
situated on the brook Siloah—comp. on John ix. 7—it may have 
been the garden-house of some distinguished man.) 

Ver. 6-9.—The discourse of Jesus, thus stern in its reproof, is 
closed by a parable, in which the benevolent Son of Man again ren- 
ders prominent the gracious aspect of his mission. He appears as 
the advocate of men before the righteousness of our heavenly Father, 
and procures for them space for repentance. The idea of a delay 
of God’s avenging judgment, that time may be left men to turn, runs 
throughout Scripture. Before the Flood there was appointed a 
space of 120 years (Gen. vi.3) ; Abraham prays in behalf of Sodom 
(Gen. xviii, 24, seq.) ; the destruction of Jerusalem did not follow till 
forty years after the ascension of Jesus ; and the coming of Christ 
is delayed through the iong-suffering of God (2 Peter iii. 9). This 
view brings out clearly as well Divine, as human freedom, and rescues 
the course of things in the world from an inflexible and cold neces 
sity. The fig-tree (συκῆ) is here primarily a figure of the Jewish 
people, as at Hosea ix. 10. Amidst other nations they appear as 
especially noble and destined to work out great results ; but their 
abuse of privileges, granted them by the free grace of God, caused 
them to fail of producing spiritual fruit ; they fell from their voca- 
tion and lost their talent. Yet, for them also did the Saviour go to 
death, and time must yet be given to disclose the effect of preach- 
ing his sufferings and death, But since even the fire of this preach- 
ing did not melt their hearts, the people fell under the awful judg- 


Luxe XIII. 6-21. 33 


ment of God. The history of Israel, however, is a type of mankind 
generally, who are called to spiritual life, and in so far the parable 
is to be referred to the great community of the church and its final 
judgment. Nay, according to the design of our Lord, the whole 
may be traced in each individual case, and we may therefore say 
that this parabolic mode of speaking on the part of Jesus admits of 
applications endlessly diversified. If we interpret the period of 
time mentioned (τρία ἔτη) of the era of Jesus’ public ministry, then 
the following τοῦτο τὸ ἔτος, this year, must be taken in a more 
general sense, namely, as denoting the period between Christ’s 
ascension and the destruction of Jerusalem, during which the means 
of spiritual quickening and strength were afforded to the people, in 
the right use of which they both could and should have escaped 
destruction. (The circumstance that the fig-tree grew in a vine- 
yard [ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι] is not to be viewed as contradictory to Deut. 
xxii. 9, inasmuch as this Mosaic command merely forbids the mn- 
gling of different sorts of plants. The fig-tree, however, may have 
had a separate place in the garden to itself. Katapyéw is found only 
in this passage of the New Testament, except in the writings of 
Paul, where it is of frequent occurrence. It is=dpyéy, 7. 6., depyov 
ποιεῖν, to render useless or fruitless. Paul employs the word in a 
more comprehensive sense for to abolish. Σκάπτειν and κόπρια βάλ- 
Aew stand for all the means at the disposal of a gardener for advanc- 
ing the growth of a tree. The authority of Manuscripts favours the 
reading κόπρια rather than the more common κοπρίαν, It is from 
κόπριον.----Τπ the final and if it bear fruit—but if not (Kav μὲν ποιήσῃ 
—si δὲ μήγε) there is an Anantapodoton, the apodosis, or answering 
clause of the supposition, being left to be supplied. 


§ 12. Tue Curz or A Sick Woman. 
(Luke xiii, 10-21.) 


The close connexion of the different paragraphs observed by us 
in the last chapters, here in a measure disappears. Without any 
particular note of the time, Jesus appears teaching in a synagogue. 
Yet an intimation seems to meet us in what follows, which points 
back to the preceding context. For the narrative which here fol- 
lows is, as it were, an example of that Pharisaic hypocrisy, whicn 
the Saviour rebuked in Chapter xii. Hence Jesus at once addresses 
the ruler of the synagogue as (ver. 15) hypocrite. The writer then 
must have recorded the occurrence not for its own sake (at Luke vi, 
6, a narrative of the same kind had been already given), but, for the 
purpose of shewing how the priests (Pharisees for the most part in 

Vor. IL—3 . 


34 Luxe XIII. 10-22, 


sentiment) comported themselves. Quite in accoraance with this 
view, we see once more at ver. 17 the well-inclined multitude rejoic- 
ing it is true in Jesus, without deciding on throwing off for his sake 
the spiritual yoke of the Pharisees. The two parables of the mustard 
seed and the leaven, which Matth. xiii. 31, seq., has incorporated 
with his large collection of parables, harmonize most appropriately 
with this position which Jesus and his little flock occupy betwixt 
the priests and the people. The mainly invisible nature of the new 
spiritual element, its losing itself in the old, and the triumph 
which it gains ΠΕ ΠΝ its indwelling power ; all this forms the point 
of comparison between these parables and their immediate subjects. 
We may then with the utmost probability regard them as placed 
here in their original connection.*—The narrative itself of the cure 
presents no particular difficulties. The expression πνεῦμα ἀσθενείας, 
which is more nearly defined by ver. 16, denotes not a merely 
physical disorganization, but one accompanied by such psychological 
phenomena as seem to indicate pernicious influences. A disease is 
never as such attributed to the evil spirit ; there must always be. 
suspicious symptoms conjoined with it. Συγκύπτειν, bowed together, 
the opposite of dvaxinrev, The former is here intransitive. The 
latter is equivalent to the following ἀνορθοῦσθαι, made straight, 
which denotes, however, at the same time, the removal of this 
organic defect. The hypocritical priest does not venture to cast 
blame on Jesus, but inveighs against the poor blind people, and 
pretends that his wretched outward service surpassed in value the 
service of love. The Lord lays open this hypocrisy, by shewing that 
the healed woman had done nothing in the way of labour, that he 
had loosed a chain which held her bound, and done a thing the like 
of which they did themselves every Sabbath. The use of λύειν and 
δέειν here is peculiar—the meaning of the words being transferred 
from physical to spiritual relations. Again, however, the Saviour, 
without any immediate occasion for it, traces back the disease to 
Satan. Wherefore such accommodations if no truth lay at the 
foundation of the idea? (Comp. finally the parallel narrative at 
Matth. xu. 10, seq. ; Luke vi. 6, seq.) 


§ 13. ConvEersaTIONS or JESUS BY THE Way. 
(Luke xiii. 22-35.) 


We have here again clearly to do with a journey to Jerusalem 
(ver. 22), which Jesus was making in company with his disciples— 


* The parable of the mustard seed with the expression ἔβαλεν εἰς κῆπον ἑαυτοῦ (ver. 
19) points back not obscurely to the foregoing similitude of the fig-tree (ver. 6). 


Luxe XIII. 22-24, 30 


a journey manifestly near the close of his high earthly mission, as 
the expressions they shall not be able (οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν), and the fol- 
lowing shutting the door (ἀποκλείεν τὴν θύραν), plainly indicate (ver. 
24, 25). Moreover, the entire sketch bears the marks of being 
drawn directly and vividly from the life. We have here not a doc- 
trinal discourse of Jesus, but conversations as they arose from the 
occurrences of the moment, and recorded with great truthfulness 
(ver. 23, 31). As Mark shews himself exact in describing the ex- 
ternal features of actions, especially in the cures wrought by Jesus, 
so does Luke (and particularly in the account of this journey), in 
setting forth the conversations of Christ, their occasions, conse- 
quences, course of development, and issues (comp. Introd. § 6). 

Ver, 22.—A perfectly similar form of expression, serving merely 
to carry forward the narrative of the journey, we have already met 
with at Luke x. 38. (Πορεία occurs only here in the sense of ὁδός, 
It is used figuratively at James i, 11.) 

Ver. 23, 24.—The first conversation here recounted by Luke 
begins with a question put by an individual as to the number of the 
saved (σωζόμενοι). This question takes for granted at the outset 
that character of solemnity which the discourses of Jesus bear, and 
which must naturally have become stronger towards the end of his 
public labours. With the idea that the number is small, the pas- 
sage also associates the difficulty of uniting one’s self toit. The 
Saviour in reply, does not say exactly that there were but few who 
should partake of salvation (σωτηρία, the opposite of ἀπώλεια) ; for 
looked at simply in itself, the number of the saved is great (Rev. 
vii. 9) ; it is only relatively, and as compared with the lost, that it 
is small (Matth. vii. 14). Rather does he at once give such a turn 
to the answer, as to lead the attention of the inquirer, and of all 
those whose minds were in the same state, back to themselves. The 
enquiry as to the number presupposes a certain disposition to look 
without. This false position, which proceeds in all cases from self- 
security, our Lord here rebukes, so that his words may be para- 
phrased thus : ‘‘ Look not to others, but to yourselves.” To sharpen 
the thought, it is, however, added further, that not only are those 
lost who strive not at all for things Divine, but many also who do 
care for them. As thus seeking the enquirers held themselves 
secure, but this security Jesus unsettles for them, by remarking 
that mere striving is not sufficient to attain the end. (The com- 
parison of the στενὴ 6vpa—other authorities have inserted πύλη, tak- 
ing it from Matth—was already explained at Matth. vii. 138,14. It 
is of such a kind that Jesus may frequently have used it, and in 
both evangelists, therefore, it may occupy its original place.) This 
thought is obscure and difficult, especially when we compare such 
passages as Matth. vi. 33, Luke xii. 31, in which the very seeking 


36 Luge XIII. 24, 25, 


the kingdom of God is held forth as the only thing required for its 
attainment. The following words, however, which are peculiar to 
Luke, clear away the obscurity. 

Ver. 25.—In parabolic language, then, there is here set before 
us the master of a house expecting at evening the members of his 
family, and at a fixed hour shutting the doors. (The word éyei- 
ρεσθαι ---- 85» denotes merely the transition from a state of rest to 
one of progressive activity.) The members of the family, then, who 
have been negligent, remain inexorably shut out. They attempt to 
establish their close connexion with the master of the house ; but 
they can appeal only to things external. The want of real love and 
true obedience to the master, shewed that they were no genuine 
members of the household. Allusions to this parable are found at 
Matth. xxv. 10, seq.; Matth. vii. 21, seq.; viii. 11, seq. But asa 
whole it is peculiar to Luke. As regards the exposition of it, it 
cannot possibly prove satisfactory to say that the seeking is to be 
viewed as an imperfect, undecided seeking, for the emphasis here is 
obviously laid on the οὐκ ἰσχύσουσι, they shall not be able, to which 
corresponds in the parable the expression ἀποκλείειν τὴν θύραν, shut 
the door. Nay, in the very Lord, Lord, open unto us, the effort is 
represented as a very lively and earnest one, but not the less as in- 
effectual and rejécted. It is not the weakness of the endeavour 
which is blamed, but its being owt of season, the right time having 
been squandered away. This is represented as no less culpable, 
and highly dangerous in its consequences, than the want of all 
effort. We are thus led to the idea, that for the thriving of the 
Divine seed, all different seasons are no more alike than for the 
growth of the seed-corn in the field. He who has not sowed in 
spring, must expect no success how earnestly soever he labours in 
harvest. The Saviour himself marks these seasons by the contrast 
between day and night (John xi. 9, seq.), the hour when darkness 
(or light) bears sway (Luke xxii. 53); the former must be employed 
for developing the course of life, the latter allows of nothing being 
done. There was such a period of power and development in 
the kingdom of God (when it suffered violence on the part of those 
who longed after it, Matth. xi. 12), at the time when John the 
Baptist and Christ arose; but as the death of Jesus approached, 
the quickening power of the Spirit was withdrawn, and dark night 
overshadowed men’s hearts. Of this Jesus warns the well-inclined 
but undecided, who comforted themselves with their seeking, and 
reminds them that it must come to a real entrance being made into 
the kingdom of God—they must give up all in order to gain all. 
The alternation of such seasons, favourable and less favourable for 
the growth of what is good, which may be traced in all relations, 
nations, and individuals, involves nothing difficult to be reconciled 


LUKE XIII, 25-27, 37 


with the righteousness of God, unless the same rule of judgment 
were applied to those living in the unfavourable periods as to those 
who experienced the stimulating influences of more favoured 
times. Taking for granted a separate rule of judgment, however, 
this idea of a difference in different times, is as certainly based upon 
experience as it is in accordance with the great designs of God 
towards mankind ; for, just as little as a tree can bring forth blos- 
soms and nothing more—as it is necessary rather that the blossoms 
fall off that fruit may be produced, just so little can man be carried 
to perfection in the joyous influx of heavenly powers. If his life 
has become in some degree strengthened, there follow conflicts 
through which his nature is still further developed. The seasons ot 
stirring life, however, must be employed in order to escape from the 
old state ; then comes the hour when darkness bears sway, when 
the tardy and negligent can no more be brought to the birth, though 
even these dark seasons may bring a rich blessing for the man 
awakened to newness of life—as, for example, is shewn by the his- 
tory of Peter at the time of our Lord’s sufferings. Accordingly (as 
was already remarked at Matth. vi. 21, seq.), the words “I know 
not whence ye are,” are in the highest degree significant. They 
correspond to the “1 never knew you” in Matth., and describe the 
severance, in point of nature, between the Lord and these pretended 
members of the household, their living in the old natural state, 
their unregenerate condition. 

Ver. 26, 27.—Instead of that affinity of the whole inner man to 
our Lord, which alone can bring us into his kingdom, these men 
who wished, like the Pharisees, to be held for something which they 
were not, depended on merely outward relations. But as these had 
not brought them into a state of righteousness, they remained in 
the old condition of unrighteousness, and consequently were shut 
out from the kingdom of God. We are not here by any means to 
think of actions peculiarly wicked ; the sin of these men consisted 
in their disobedience to the light of truth, which shone upon them 
from the word of Christ, and through which they might have become 
new and different men. They had acquired too much knowledge to 
be unprejudiced, and doo little to admit of the life from above gain- 
ing the ascendancy over them. This intermediate position was the 
cause of their misery, and their exclusion from the kingdom of God. 
(Comp. on the passage Matth, vii. 21, seq.) Very significantly does 
Luke subjoin the mention of what was taking place even while he 
was speaking—a circumstance peculiarly fitted to bring to decisive 
resolution the men whom he addressed, ‘‘ thou hast taught in our 
streets” (ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις ἡμῶν ἐδίδαξας). It was not our Lord’s 
teaching, however, which brought salvation (his teaching might 


38 Luxe XIII. 26-80. 


quite as readily serve for their condemnation), but their receiving 
his words and doing them. 

Ver. 28, 29.—In its closing verses this discourse of our Lord 
receives further a peculiar application, in that it exhibits the Jews 
as mainly members of the householder’s family, who, because of 
their unfaithfulness (as to the great majority of their number) were 
excluded from the kingdom of God, in order that in their stead the 
heathen, who received the word with willingness, might be invited 
to partake its eternal joys, (As to the words see more at length on 
Matth. viii. 11, 12.) In itself, however, the parable goes further, 
and may be understood of the heathen as a body as well as individ- 
ually, inasmuch as its fundamental idea is universally true and 
universally applicable. Here, at the close of our Lord’s labours 
among his own people, the restriction of the parable to them is per- 
fectly in accordance with the circumstances. 

Ver. 30.—The aphoristic expressions, ‘‘ there are last, etc,” seem 
to refer in their connexion to the relation in which the Jews stood to 
the heathen. They were spoken unquestionably more than once, and 
stand therefore in different relations. (See more particularly as to 
the aphorism on Matth. xix. 30; xx. 16.) Though we may perhaps 
observe that the aphorism is expressed in a form different from 
that in which it occurs at Matth. xx. 16, ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι 
πρῶτοι, καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι. This form of it, however, would be 
best adapted clearly to mark the distinction between Jews and 
heathen. But since many Jews also took their place in the kingdom 
of God, and since not all lost it by unfaithfulness, while their room 
was filled up by Gentiles, the Saviour on this account rather chose 
the form of expression which here occurs—‘‘ there are some, less 
favoured in their vocation, who are exalted by faithfulness ; and 
many who have an exalted vocation, but through their unfaithful- 
ness have rendered themselves unworthy of it.” The form of the 
aphorism is thus modified in each case according to the connexion. 

Finally, we have already remarked (Matth. viii. 11), that in this 
exclusion of those seeking from the kingdom of God, we are not to 
understand the loss on their part of eternal salvation. The king- 
dom of God set forth here, is obviously the blessed communion of 
the saints at the return of the Lord (comp. on Matth. xxv. 12.) The 
representation given (Luke xiii. 25) shews plainly that it is not 
intended to represent the love of what is good, and delight in it, 
as absolutely wanting (comp. on Matth. xxv. 45), but only as weak 
and undecided, by which means, certainly, an entrance into the 
kingdom is rendered impossible—but not by any means is salvation 
thereby necessarily prevented. Thus the kingdom of God in this 
passage also (as Matth. viii, 11) denotes not eternity as the per- 
fected development of creation, but the dominion of the good made 


home Xl. 30-33. 39 


visible on earth, which shall present itself as the living communion 
of all the saints of all times. 

Ver. 31—To the reading ἡμέρᾳ we ought almost to prefer that of 
ὥρᾳ, which is preserved by A. D. L. and several other MSS. The 
remark of the Pharisees comes on in that case, more suddenly, and 
the narrative becomes more full of life. The origin of the reading 
ἡμέρᾳ can also be more easily accounted for than that of ὥρᾳ. For 
precisely because what follows appeared altogether foreign to what 
immediately precedes, it was deemed desirable to separate them in 
time. If we suppose the question asked above (ver. 23) also put by 
a Pharisee, its contrast with what follows stands forth so much the 
more strongly. The keen sarcasm which they traced in the reply 
of Jesus, made them wish probably as soon as possible to be freed 
from his presence. Thus the reply of Jesus, in which he declares 
that he intended yet to remain for a few days, has a clear reference 
to the Pharisees who wished to be rid of him—a view to which ver. 
35 also points. It deserves remark, finally, that here the scene again 
shifts back to Galilee or Perzea, the region of Herod Antipas. The 
general remarks made above at Luke ix. 51, to the effect that Luke 
does not seem accurately to have observed relations of time and 
place, find in this their confirmation. 

Ver. 32, 33—That this insinuation expresses the views, not of 
the Pharisees but of Herod, is in the highest degree improbable, 
especially as Luke afterwards relates (xxiii. 8) that Herod eagerly 
desired to see Jesus. Besides, it is obvious that he had the means 
readily within his reach of banishing Jesus, if he had wished to be 
rid of him, It is far more natural to suppose that the Pharisces, 
to serve their own wicked ends, made use of a report as to the evil 
intentions of Herod, which may easily have arisen after the murder 
of John. The opinion in question derives much less apparent sup- 
port from the fact that Jesus calls Herod a fox, than from his 
charging them to report it to Herod. This circumstance admits, 
indeed, of being understood in this way, “ Behold I sce through your 
plan ; you act as if you would give me good advice, and you are the 
mere delegates of my cunning enemy.” The words, however, have 
a sarcastic bearing, even if the Pharisees are in no way regarded as 
express delegates of Herod. Those who hypocritically pressed 
themselves on him as good friends and counsellors, he refers to the 
man whom they denounced as his enemy—he places them conse- 
quently on the same footing, so that what strikes him reaches them 
also, nay, in reality, under the name of Herod, it is they alone who 
are aimed at. This should be held the more probable as it can 
hardly be believed that Jesus, who was so delicate in observing de- 
corum towards all in authority, should have given to his own ruler 


40 Luxe XIII. 32, 33. 


the opprobrious name of fox (ἀλώπηξ). Tf, however, his words were 
directed against the Pharisees, who had either for their own ends 
made use of a mere report, or had even fabricated it, his reply ac- 
quires the striking meaning, that this fox (an expression in which 
not merely cunning, but weakness, and with this qualities that are 
contemptible, form the point of resemblance), of whom they pre- 
tended to give an account, existed nowhere else than in their own 
hearts ; and that while acting the part of his counsellors, they 
cherished real enmity within. This led very naturally (ver. 33) to 
the mention of Jerusalem, where they laid the scene of their intrigues. 
This view of the occurrence agrees also with that reproof directed 
against the Pharisees which runs through all these chapters (from 
chap. xi. onwards), and which is carried still farther forward in 
chap. xiv. The words which follow also, behold I cast out, etc., are 
rendered sharp and pointed if they are applied to the Pharisees, 
“Ye who are set for the salvation of the people ought to know that 
my labours are not merely not pernicious, but in the highest degree 
beneficial, but your wickedness does not cease to persecute me.” 
(Τελειοῦμαι is to be taken transitively, sc. ταῦτα τὰ épya—lI fulfil 
these and all my works.) There is obscurity in the mode of stating 
the time, “to-day, to-morrow, and the third day” (σήμερον, αὔριον 
kat τῇ τρίτῃ). It is wholly incredible and incapable of proof, that 
this expression can indicate an entirely indefinite period. Least of all 
can Hosea vi. 2 (*eb¥in 55. bra), the exposition of which is itself 
difficult, be adduced in support of this view, and other instances 
are wholly wanting. It follows, however, from the general laws of 
thought, that to-day, to-morrow, and the day after, is the assigning 
of a period perfectly definite.t Yet what can be meant by this exact 
announcement, “ for three days I still perform cures here,” can hardly 
be determined. The obscurity is increased by what follows, for in- 
stead of τρίτῃ there stands as the parallel expression ἐχομένῃ. ("Eyeo= 
θαι in the sense of hold one’s self to, fasten upon, adjoin. ‘Huépa 
ἐχομένη occurs at Acts xxi. 26. Compare also Marki. 38.) The πλὴν 
δεῖ forms here a contrast with the foregoing, yet not with perfect 
strictness, since for Dr. Paulus’ rendering, “See I still require about 
three days to heal the sick, but (should Herod command it) I will 
take my departure earlier ; the context gives no ground, not to 
mention that the idea is tame, and accords ill with the sarcastic and 
spirited style of the discourse. For the understanding of the pas- 
sage it should be specially borne in mind, that the whole discourse 
which the Pharisees were to report to Herod, is a feigned one ; that 

* Compare, however, on Luke xxiii., seq. according to which it appears Jesus did 
not believe himself bound to acknowledge Herod as his governor. 

+ The assigning ofan indefinite period of time can be effected only by the use of 7 


as is shewn in the example quoted by Wetstein on this passage, from Arrian Epict. iv. 
10, ὅτι αὔριον ἢ εἰς τὴν τρίτην δεῖ ἢ αὐτὸν ἀποθανεῖν ἤ ἐκεῖνον, 


Luxe XIII. 34, sa. 41 


it sustains only a formal connexion with their remark. In its senti« 
ment, it is directed against the Pharisees and their wickedness, 
Consequently the meaning of the words may be taken thus: “I 
have to exercise my blessed office for a certain time ; for this time, 
however, 1 must walk and work, and no power can touch me (mine 
hour is not yet come) ; but in Jerusalem it will come, and there 
will ye gain power over me. Your victory, however, will be your 
ruin, and him whom ye'shall have rejected, ye shall never more 
behold, till the time of his final return.” The expression to-day, 
to-morrow, and the day after, is therefore a symbolic description of 
the whole public ministry of Jesus, which is in point of time ex- 
‘actly measured off, and which no earthly power can shorten.**—The 
closing idea of ver. 33 is also remarkable, ὅτε οὐκ ἐνδέχεται προφήτην 
ἀπολέσθαι ἔξω “Ἱερουσαλήμ, for it is not permitted, etc. From ver. 
35 it is clear that Jerusalem is viewed as the seat of the theocracy, 
and centre of Pharisaic intrigue, so that the sense of the words is, 
“not in Galilee, no! in your chief city must I die.” The Saviour, 
however, proceeds to extend the idea, so as to include the prophets 
generally, and explains that it was necessary they should die in 
Jerusalem, (’Evdéyerae used impersonally = dvévdextov ἐστι, Luke 
xvii. 1. It means, zt is allowable, it is possible. Τὰ ἐνδεχόμενα = 
δυνατά.) In this there is one thing remarkable. John the Baptist, 
who, as the latest instance of a slain prophet, must have stood be- 
fore every one’s view, had been put to death, not in Jerusalem, but 
in this very territory of Herod. The expression therefore uttered 
in this general form seems neither correct nor suited to the circum- 
stances. We might be tempted to read “ the prophet,” τὸν προφήτην, 
so that the Messiah should be alone denoted, but there is no manu- 
script which has the article, and we must remain true to our prin- 


* The difficulty of the passage here referred to, arises solely from the pregnant brevity 
which is so characteristic of the Saviour’s language. To assume with De Wette, inac- 
curacy in the report of the Evangelist, is wholly gratuitous. ‘‘ To-day,” and ‘“ to-mor- 
row,” ete., are put rhetorically, a definite for an indefinite period. The passage then may 
be thus paraphrased: “Go and tell that fox that I continue my wonted course of mira- 
culous healing during the appointed time, and at the time appointed, I complete it. I 
have uothing therefore to fear from his machinations. Nevertheless (πλὴν) there is a 
reason why I should speedily be on my way. The time soon comes when by Divine ap- 
pointment I shall be delivered over to my enemies, and then I ought to be at Jerusalem, 
for she has vindicated to herself the exclusive right of shedding the blood of the prorhets. 
Hence, I must proceed on (πορεύεσθαι) to-day, and to-morrow, and the third day, 7. 6.» 
immediately and continuously—for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.” 
This explanation gives its full contrastive force to πλὴν δεῖ, and its natural meaning to 
πορεύεσθαι. It defies the malice of Herod, and yet assigns a cause for his leaving, which, 
in its bitter sarcasm against Jerusalem, is in keeping with the general severity of the 
preceding discourse. It also presents a beautiful contrast with the touching verses which 
follow. At the bare name of Jerusalem the Saviour’s heart melts; his tone of sarcasm 
is laid aside, and his spirit gushes forth in the yearning tenderness of the following 
beautiful apostrophe.—[K. 


42 Luke XIE; 33-35. 


ciple of admitting no conjecture into the text of the New Testament, 
Besides, in ver. 34 the idea is immediately extended to include the 
prophets generally. Hence, we can only say that the Saviour here 
attributes to the class of prophets, not including himself in it, but 
standing as its representative (see ver. 34), what is true of the 
majority of its members. In any case, however, a certain obscurity 
attaches to the expression in the existing circumstances. It is 
easier finding something satisfactory to say on the fact of its being 
necessary that prophets should die (and especially the prophet) in 
Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the centre of the national, and espe- 
cially the religious life of Israel (for which reason at ver. 34 the 
prophets are described as sent to Jerusalem, in so far as this city 
represented the land and the people), the altar as it were of the 
whole nation, since no sacrifice was to be offered except in the tem- 
ple at Jerusalem. Init therefore must the ministry of the prophets 
concentrate itself, and their last great work also, their death of 
martyrdom, must be completed there. As the offering of Isaac was 
of old presented on Mount Moriah (Gen. xxii. 2), so the reality of 
which it was the type, could reveal itself only in Jerusalem. The 
sovereign sway of Jehovah everywhere attaches itself to time and 
place, and without subverting or restricting the freedom of man’s 
actions, must yet fulfil the eternal arrangements of God. Freedom 
and necessity mutually pervade, but do not subvert each other in 
Bible history. To the Pharisees, moreover, as those who had as- 
sumed the defence of the theocracy, nothing stronger could be said 
than this, your chief city with its temple and altar is the murderess 
of all God’s servants, a great altar as it were on which the saints 
have fallen as victims. (Comp. Lament. iv. 13.) 

Ver. 34, 85.—The concluding verses have been incorporated by 
Matth. xxiii. 37-39, into his weighty discourse in reproof of the 
Pharisees. Here, in Luke, they hold undoubtedly their original 
place. The mention of Jerusalem awakens the deepest sadness in 
the heart of Jesus for the unbelief of the city. The murderess of 
the prophets was in her children to be gathered to the flock of God, 
but they would not. But as by the abuse of their freedom, they 
frustrated, as it were, the one of God’s plans, they against their own 
will fulfilled the other. What they would not take from the living 
Prophet, they must receive from the dy/ng. The words ‘‘ How 
often would I,” etc., describe not merely the endeavours of Jesus 
personally for the salvation of the people, as represented by Jerusa- 
lem, but the whole collective ministry of the prophets. This leads 
the Saviour back wholly to himself, as in his Divine and eternal ἡ 
nature the Prophet of prophets. (Comp. Luke xi. 49 with Matth. 
xxiii. 34, where Christ is represented as sending forth all the proph- 
ets.) This idea throws back a light which determines the meaning 


Luxe XIII. 34, 35. 43 


of the expression οὐκ ἐνδέχεται προφήτην ἀπολέσθαι ἔξω “Ἱερουσαλήμ, 
ver. 33.—(The beautiful figure of the fowl which gathers its young 
under its wings is after Ps. xvii. 8; Is. xxxi, 5. The comparison 
strikes every mind of deep thought as a tender expression of mater- 
nal love in natural life. Thus we read in Euripides Hercul. fur. v. 
71, οἱ θ᾽ “Πράκλειοι παῖδες, ov¢ ὑποπτέρους σώζω νεοσσοὺς, ὄρνις ὡς ὑφει-- 
μένη ὑφίεσθαι, a peculiar expression for placing the young beneath 
the mother.) After this apostrophe to Jerusalem, the discourse again 
turns to the Pharisees, and the Saviour adds reprovingly, ‘‘ Your 
house is left unto you” (ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ oixoc ὑμῶν). (The addition 
ἔρημος is taken from the parallel passage in Matth. xxiii. 38.) Οἶκος, 
house (in its more extended meaning like m3), is certainly selected 
here in accordance with Psalm lxix. 25 (Comp. Acts i. 20), in which 
passage the house’s being left desolate is enumerated along with 
other imprecations. The house, however, has at any rate a special 
reference to the Temple as the central point of theocratic life, which, 
in so far as it was the house of God, might also be appropriately 
termed the house of the priests. The desolation of the Temple, 
however, and the departing from it of the gracious presence of God, 
was identical with that overthrow of the entire worldly dominion of 
the priesthood, which was of necessity to be associated with the en- 
trance of Christ’s spiritual and heavenly kingdom. The two could 
not co-exist. Inasmuch as the Pharisees, therefore, seemingly tri- 
umphant, put Jesus to death, they in this very act laid the founda- 
tions for ever of his kingdom, and destroyed their own. The con- 
cluding words, λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν x. τι Δ. are difficult. The declaration 
that they should not see the Saviour, attaches itself as an ex- 
pression of rebuke closely to the preceding ; but in the first 
place, there is an obscurity as to what period the ἕως dy ἥξῃ, until 
it shall come, etc., denotes,* and next, it seems to contradict the 
punitive character of the sentiment, that the Pharisees themselves 
are exhibited as greeting the Lord. For, that the words εὐλογημένος 
Κ. τ. 2. are to be understood as an act of homage, admits (according 
to Matth. xxi. 9, compared with Ps. exviii. 26) of no doubt. The 
first of these difficulties can be removed only after we have cleared 
up the second. This would be solved, however, if we were to read 
something like ὅτε εἴπωσι, so as to make the meaning of the dis- 
course this, ‘‘ Ye unbelievers shall see me no more (as the gentle Son 
of Man), till they welcome me (the pious, namely) at my return as 
the righteous judge of the world.” In other words, ‘‘ Ye shall see 
me again only as your Judge.” But this reading is wholly without 


* Compare what was remarked upon the kindred and striking passage Matth. xxvi. 
64, dm’ ἄρτι ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν Tod ἀνθρώπου κ. τ. Δ. Matth. xxiii. 39, in the passage paral- 
lel to that before us, has the words οὐ μή με ἴδητε ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι x. τ. A—The 7&7 is best taken 
mpersonally, “it comes.” Some MSS. have supplied dpa or ἡμέρα. 


44 Luke XIII. 34,35; XIV. 1: 


support from any critical authority, and can therefore have no claim 
on our approval. The second person leads to an entirely different 
meaning, which, more closely considered, is remarkably appropriate, 
and suited, in the highest degree to the character of the Lord, who 
walked even amidst his enemies as one full of grace. The passage 
then promises them a change even of their feelings, and, as flowing 
from this, an acknowledgment of the Messianic dignity of Jesus, 
That which here they could not comprehend—the ministry of Jesus; 
peculiar in itself, and opposed to their whole nature and disposition 
of mind, was, according to this promise, to be made clear to them 
afterwards, and they would raise their voices in unison with the 
jubilant tones of those who, waiting for their Lord, would meet him 
with the cry ninz p¥a x27 p12. The passage expresses then the final 
victory of the Saviour over all his enemies, whom he punishes in 
such a manner that he wins them for himself. It is impossible, 
however, to determine, whether this victory and the coming of 
Christ was to take place at some point of time near at hand, such 
as the pouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the 
conversion of many priests therewith connected (Acts vi. 7), or the 
destruction of Jerusalem, or whether it be the return of Jesus to his 
kingdom or to the judgment of the world. For, in the first place, 
as was already remarked on Matth. x. 23, the idea of the speedy 
coming of our Lord runs through the whole New Testament in such 
a way, that each of these several periods falls quite within the time 
of his anticipated coming, and again, the idea itself embraces such 
a variety of relations that in passages like this we can find no 
necessary ground for deciding in favour of the one or the other. It 
is best, therefore, to take the expression in the entire comprehen- 
siveness which it will admit of, and consider the meaning of the 
Saviour to be this, that at each coming of the Lord, at one or other 
of those preliminary appearances in which the Good is exhibited to 
view as triumphant, but most completely at that which is final and 
decisive, the enemies of the Saviour should ever lay themselves down 
as a footstool beneath his feet. (Comp. on Matth. x. 23, but espe- 
cially on Matth. xxiv. 1, seq., where everything relating to the 
Return of Christ is treated of connectedly.) 


§ 14. Jesus Dives wita a PHARISEER. 
(Luke xiv. 1-24.) 


This new section harmonizes well with a journal of Travel (comp. 
ver. 1 with ix, 17), and partakes that style of narrative which we 
have already traced init. The healing of one afflicted with dropsy 
in the house of a Pharisee on the Sabbath gives rise to a conversa- 


Luxe XIV. 1-7. 45 


ion in which Jesus gives instruction by parabolic narratives.* 
With unwonted liveliness, Luke represents the discourse as directed 
first to the guest, and then to the host. (ver. 7 and 12), and, finally, 
the exclamation of one of the guests (ver. 15) calls forth a particular 
parable applicable to him and those like minded. The peculiar 
connexion of the whole is again the best voucher for the originality 
of the narrative. 

Ver. 1-6—The cure of the man afflicted with dropsy, which may 
be conceived as completed before the repast, contains nothing in 
itself worthy of remark. It is merely a point of connexion for the 
following conversation. As the Pharisees had already frequently 
blamed the cures wrought by Christ on the Sabbath, he himself 
starts the question whether such acts of healing could be contrary 
to the law. As at Matth. xii. 11, Luke xii. 15, he leads those 
present back to their own experience, and makes them feel the 
sharp self-contradiction into which they: were plunged by casting 
blame on Christ’s free labours of love, inasmuch as they, where their 
own earthly advantage was involved, did the same things which 
they objected to in him. It is not to be overlooked, however, that 
even in this last period in which the hatred of the Pharisees against 
him was most distinctly expressed, the Saviour does not abandon 
them. He obviously hoped, by the power of the truth, to gain 
over for himself and the cause of God the better disposed, at least, 
among them. (As to the φαγεῖν ἄρτον ver. 1, see the particulars on 
ver. 15.—On παρατηρεῖν see at Luke vi. 7.) 

Ver. 7.—Throughout the following three comparisons, then, there 
runs the one special exhortation to humility, which, was above all 
things, necessary for the proud Pharisees. In the first (ver. 7-11), 
with reference to the obvious and manifest strife for precedence 
among those present, it teaches self-humiliation ; in the second 
(ver. 12-14), looking to the brilliant company which the Pharisee 
had invited together, it shews the duty of lifting up to ourselves the 
poor and miserable ; and, in the last (ver. 16-24), with regard to 
the eager hope cherished by the Pharisee for the kingdom of God 
(ver. 15), it holds forth the conduct of God in calling men to his 
kingdom, at once excluding from it the satiated rich, and inviting 
into it the hungry poor, as an imperative rule of conduct to us. 
Eiven though there were, therefore, special causes in each case for 
the modification of the fundamental idea, yet the occasion which 
gave at first this turn to the conversation of Jesus was probably the 
cure of the man with the dropsy. Although the Pharisees and 
Lawyers were silent (ver. 4, 6) at the question of Jesus, yet un- 

* The Pharisee is styled τὲς τῶν ἰρχόντων τῶν Φαρισαίων = dpytovvdywyoc. We are 


not to suppose that those ἄρχοντες are here meant who are sometimes spoken of as op- 
posed to the Pharisees, ex. gr. John xii, 42. 


46 Luxe XIV. 7-11. 


doubtedly their look sufficiently expressed contempt for the unfor- 
tunate man, and this at once led the Saviour (ver. 5) to bring 
forward despised animals (dvoc,* and βοῦς) in the similitude—* Ifye 
at once hasten, on the Sabbath, to draw an ass out of the pit, it 
well becomes me to bring help to a man who will be suffocated by 
water.” In what way the bodily assistance is a type of the spiritual 
call of those who were healed, is particularly shewn by ver. 21, seq., 
where it is precisely the miserable (such as the cured man in this 
instance) who appear as the invited ones, while the proper guests 
(the Pharisees, as representatives of the Old Testament economy) 
remain shut out from the feast. And now, as the guests at the 
commencement of the repast eagerly strove for the highest places 
(πρωτοκλισίας ἐξελέγοντο), which conduct arose from the same self- 
sufficiency that originated their contempt for the dropsical man, 
Jesus immediately rebukes this. (‘Eréyev scil. νοῦν animum ad- 
vertere. Acts ill. 5.) 

Ver. 8-11.—Without veiling his design, the Lord reproves quite 
openly the vanity of the Pharisees. In the following parable the 
reference is entirely unconcealed. (As to παραβολή comp. on Matth. 
xiii. 1. The parabolic form here is not completely carried out.) As 
respects, however, the meaning of the narrative, it is very strange 
that so subordinate a motive should be brought forward to induce 
self-abasement. For it seems false humility, and consequently con- 
cealed pride, to take a seat low down to gain the honour of being 
elevated. Christ appears to give here rather a refined prudential 
rule than a pure ethical precept, and it would seem the more correct 
course to take just that seat which properly belongs to one. But the 
apothegm (ver. 11) which gives finally the fundamental idea of the 
parable, makes obvious the reason why this form of presenting it 
was adopted. In that single display of self-sufficient vanity our 
Lord fathomed those depths of character which led to similar dis- 
plays they made in spiritual things. He has to do with the purify- 
ing of these depths, and his representations, therefore, take such a 
form as to involve a warning against spiritual pride. Over against 
self-exaltation must be placed the act most strongly contrasted with 
it, and that is not merely to refrain from self-exaltation, but posi- 
tively to humble ourselves (ταπεινοῦν ἑαυτόν). To bring this con- 
trast clearly out in the parable, the expression, reclining in the lowest 


* The reading υἱός has, in point of weighty critical authorities (the MSS. A. B. E. C. 
ΤΙ. M.S. give it), much support. The connexion, however, is most in favour of ὄνος. 
The whole passage contains a conclusion drawn a minori ad majus, and with this it is 
obvious that υἱός does not agree. The reading υἱός may easily have originated with per- 
sons who overlooked this form in which the inference is drawn in 21e passage, and sup- 
posed that the necessity of healing on the Sabbath would be rendered far more clear by 
selecting the case of a child, love to whom, would inevitably constrain his parents to save 
him on the Sabbath. 


‘ 


Luxe XIV. 11-14. 47 


place (ἀναπέσαι εἰς τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον) is set over against reclining in 
the first seat (κατακλίνεσθαι εἰς τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν). But that which 
in the affairs of earth would prove only a half rule (inasmuch as the 
sitting low down of set purpose must be held as only another form 
of displaying vanity), is, in spiritual things, true and right in its 
fullest sense ; for there is demanded in fact not the mere absence 
of the positive manifestations of pride, but an attack upon the 
hidden evil which exists even where it does not shew itself. These 
positive sanctifying efforts* carried on in the power of the Holy 
Spirit are denoted by the humbling oneself. This expression also 
presupposes an antecedent higher position (which is, however, to be 
carefully distinguished from the ὑψοῦν ἑαυτόν), inasmuch as the 
lowly cannot be humbled any more. (Comp. on the apothegm at 
ver. 10, what is said on Matth, xxii. 12.) 

Ver, 12-14—The statements of our Lord in what follows are 
not different in substance from the preceding discourse to the guests 
(ἔλεγε καὶ τῷ κεκληκότι αὐτόν). For, the following parable is only a 
continuation of the foregoing. As the guests ought to humble 
themselves by selecting the lowest place, so should the host humble 
himself by inviting the poorest. But, according to the different 
relations of guest and host there stands out in the first similitude 
more prominently an unassuming disposition ; in the second, con- 
descending, humble love. Hence we may regard the two parables as 
adapted to persons of different positions in the kingdom of God. 
It is by no means to be supposed that we have here an entertain- 
ment furnished at the public expense, as Dr. Paulus has inferred, 
from the prohibition to invite relations. This prohibition is rather 
to be held parallel with Luke xiv. 26, “He who hateth not father 
and mother is not worthy of me.” It is only intended to shew the 
necessity of being delivered from what is merely sensitive and na- 
tural in our love ; that higher love imparted in regeneration enno- 
bles all the natural ties of affection. (᾿Ανάπηρος, maimed, one who 
wants a member, = πηρύς, from πηρόω, to mutilate. It is found again 
ia the N. T. only at Luke xiv, 21.—Comp. as to the idea of a re- 
compense, in passages which take for granted the evangelical prin- 
ciple, on Matth. v. 12; x. 42.) The mention of the resurrection of 
the just (ἀνάστασις τῶν δικαΐων), without any occasion to call it forth, 
is an evident indication that the distinction made by the Jews be- 
tween the first and second resurrection was acknowledged by our 
Lord as correct. Such passages as Rev. xx. 5 (where the expression 
ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη occurs); 1 Cor. xv. 22, 23; 1 Thess. iv. 16, shew 
also that the apostles themselves had embraced the distinction 
within the circle of their ideas. In the book of Revelation the whole 
conclusion of the work would be entirely unintelligible without it. 


** Comp. on this the remarks on Matth. xiii. 2. 


48 Luce XLV. 12-15. 


The rationalistic expositors were unprejudiced enough to acknow- 
ledge that this doctrine was supported by the New Testament, but 
they employed it to prove that the apostles (and in part the 
Saviour himself) were entangled in Jewish prejudice, or accom- 
modated themselves to such errors. (On the opinions of the Jews, 
comp. Bertholdt in the Christ, Jud. § 35, p. 176, seq.) We shall 
afterwards take pains to shew (in a preliminary way, indeed, on 
Matth. xxiv.*) that the distinction drawn between the two resurrec- 
tions stands in closest unison with the whole circle of doctrines as 
to the final issue of all things, and that only when we adopt it do 
many passages of Scripture acquire their true meaning. 

Ver. 15.—One of the guests understood quite correctly the ex- 
pression used by the Saviour as to the resurrection of the just. He 
places in connexion with it, not eternal salvation, which properly 
ig associated with the general resurrection, but life in the kingdom 
of God. Hence the kingdom of God here is, as the context shews, 
that state in which the will of God shall have dominion on earth— 
the restoration of earth to its original condition. In this state did 
the Jews hope to live in peace under the sway of Messiah, along 
with the risen saints of the Old Testament, whose representatives, 
the progenitors of their race, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are men- 
tioned by name (Matth. viii. 11; Luke xiii. 28). The joyful hope 
of Messiah’s speedy appearance was usually associated with the 
blessed anticipation of life in the Messianic kingdom. In substance, 
this series of ideas was entirely correct, and corresponded as well 
with the predictions of the Old Testament as with the representa- 
tions of the New, except as the Jews in general formed grossly 
material conceptions of the Messiah’s kingdom, and forgot the inter- 
nal conditions of admittance into it. As part of the people of God, 
they believed that they must in any event be incorporated into 
God’s kingdom. Irom this position of security and self-complacency 
seems to have proceeded the exclamation uttered by one of the 
guests. When Jesus mentioned recompense in the kingdom of the 
Messiah at the resurrection of the just, he called out in a transport 
of joy, including himself as a sharer in the scene of blessedness, 
“happy he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God” (μακάριος ὃς 
φάγεται ἄρτον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ). Nothing like malice, deceit, 
scorn, or intentional hypocrisy is to be traced in these words ; the 
following parable exposes merely the worldly feeling of those who 
are invited into the kingdom of God, but through their worldliness 
forfeit their invitation. This comes home to the individual in com- 


* As to the distinction also between the ἀνάστασις ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν and ἀνάττασις τῶν 
νεκρῶν, comp. the observations on Matth. xxii. 31. 

+ Compare Rev. xx. 6, where in like terms itis said μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος 6 ἔχων μέρος 
ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ πρώτῃ. 


Luxe XIV. 15, 16. 49 


mon with the whole party of Pharisees and lawyers to whom he 
belonged, but not himself personally and alone. The peculiar ex- 
clamation,however, and the close connexion of the following parable 
with it, and with all that goes before, favour again most decidedly 
the originality of this whole account. (The reading ἄριστον, instead 
of ἄρτον φαγεῖν, is merely an explanation of the Hebrew mode of 
speaking for the sake of Greeks, fashioned after the style of ver. 12.) 
The ἄρτον φαγεῖν, eat bread, stands undoubtedly for taking a meal 
(see ver. 1), and corresponds to pmb dex, Gen. xliii, 16, 32. Here 
the context points once more to the great Messianic feast (comp. 
Matth. viii. 11; Luke xiii. 28), which, according to the passages in 
the prophets (for example Is. xxv. 6), is viewed as the opening scene 
of the kingdom of God. (Comp. Bertholdt in the Christ. Jud. § 39, 
p. 196. Hisenmenger, in his Entd. Judenth. 11. 872, seq., gives the 
tasteless fables of the later Rabbins as to this feast. The phrase 
ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν, eating and drinking,* is to be distinguished from 
ἄρτον φαγεῖν, eating bread, the former denoting continued fellowship, 
a life of abundance [in the kingdom of God]. Comp. on Luke 
xxi. 30.) 

Ver. 16.—With great wisdom does our Lord in the following 
parable guide the Pharisee, who had praised so loudly the joys of 
the kingdom of God, back from externals to that which is internal. 
For, he teaches that the mere invitation is not enough, but every- 
thing depends on whether a man avails himself of it. The first 
half of it represents the manifold ways in which worldly men (es- 
pecially the Jews) abuse the Divine call ; the second half explains 
the conduct of God, and shews that others instead of those called 
are invited into the kingdom of God. ‘At Matth. xxii. 1, seq., there 
is a parable recorded which is closely allied to that before us, but it 
is carried out in a way too independent and distinct to allow of our 
believing it to be the same with that of Luke. Undoubtedly, Jesus 
has availed himself at different times and in different ways of the 
same fundamental ideas. If, then, the parable starts with the 
idea of the great supper, this has obviously a retrospective reference 
to ver. 15, and it stands as the Messianic feast for the kingdom of 
God generally, to which God causes men to be invited (and the 
Jews certainly first) by his enlightened ministers and servants. 
(The καλεῖν here denotes therefore, in a dogmatic sense, the vocatio, 
and involves both the announcement that such a kingdom exists, 
and the inward impulse to enter into it. Yet this impulse, given 
by the Spirit according to the will of God, is no compulsory one ; 
it only facilitates the determination of the will, Compare details at 
Matth. xx. 16.) 

* ’Ho@iew and πίνειν Pres, Inf. marking continued action; φαγεῖν, Aor. momentary. 


. + Compare as to this the details at Matth. xxii, 1. 
Vou. I.—4 


50 Luke XIV. 17-20. 


Ver. 17-20.—That peculiar form of the narrative, which repre- 
sents that at the commencement of the feast those previously in- 
vited were again put in mind of it (ὥρα τοῦ δείπνου), was evidently 
selected in order to express the more exactly and impressively the 
form under which the Divine invitation had come to the Jews. Not 
only had the invitation to God’s kingdom come to them generally 
through the prophets, but when it did arrive, they were by the 
Baptist again specially warned that all things were ready which 
pertained to life and salvation (πάντα εἷναι ἕτοιμα τὰ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ 
σωτηρίας). The following excuses are therefore so much the 
guiltier, the more pressing had been the invitation, (ἸΠαραιτεῖσθαι, 
to make excuse, is used for recusare and excusare. The former 
meaning is found at Acts xxv. 11; the latter is obviously implied 
at ver. 19, in the expression ἔχε μὲ παρῃτημένον, which corresponds 
to habeas me excusatum. 'To the ἀπὸ μιᾶς it is best to supply γνώ- 
μῆς or φωνῆς, for it is intended to bring out the common key-note of 
them all.) As the invitation, however, was given only to many 
(ver. 16, comp. remarks on Matth. xx. 16), this determines the 
meaning of the all (ver. 18)—they are all that had been invited. 
It would be carrying the expression too far, however, to hold that 
the first invited were the Jews, and that those afterwards (ver. 21) 
called are the heathen, inasmuch as the apostles, and all those be- 
lievers who attached themselves to Jesus himself, were Jews. 
According to the immediate import ‘of the passage, therefore, we 
must understand those first invited to be the representatives of the 
Old Testament Theocracy, and among the poor (πτωχοῖς, ver. 21), 
that company of private individuals (among whom also the ὑδρω- 
πικός must be included, ver. 2), whom Jesus honoured with his fel- 
lowship and prepared for the kingdom of God. In that case the 
words ἤρξαντο ἀπὸ μιᾶς παραιτεῖσθαι πάντες, all with one consent, etc., 
retain their literal meaning, for in fact we do not see a single indi- 
vidual among the advocates of the Theocracy openly and decisively 
attach himself to the Lord. We are not, however, to think for this 
reason all reference of the parable to Jews and heathen is excluded, 
only this is not its primary and proper application. The various 
forms of excuse put forward by those invited, denote in general their 
bondage to the world. The two first set forth its grosser manifesta- 
tions of worldliness ; the third is a subtler one, but is a mere pre- 
text. The taking of a wife ought not to have withdrawn him from 
God, but should have aided his advancement in the Divine life. 
This quality of their respective excuses, determines the form of 
their several refusals. The former, who suffer themselves to be 
entangled by gross worldliness, feel conscious of their sin, and give 
a more refined turn to their excuse—“I pray thee, have me ex- 
cused ;” the latter, however, considered the bond which kept him 


hure x Vs 20225: 51 


back as sufficient to exonerate him, and simply declares “ therefore 
I cannot come.” Essentially, however, all are alike. 

Ver. 21-24.—With this account of the way in which the un- 
worthy guests conducted themselves, there is connected the carrying 
out of the invitation given to others, and especially to the miserable 
and the poor, who are represented as without shelter or dwelling. 
(Πλατεῖα and ῥύμη stand together asin the LXX., at Is. xv. 3. The 
former expression denotes rather streets and open places ; the latter 
alleys, angiportus.) From the poor dwellers in the city, the parable 
passes over to the still more despised inhabitants of the country. 
This inviting of new guests in two sections, with the design “ that my 
house may be full,” sets forth the grace of God, which embraces all, 
even the most distant and lowly. The selection of the expressions 
εἰσάγαγε ὧδε, bring in here, and the still stronger ἀνάγκασον εἰσελθεῖν, 
compel to come in, marks most appropriately the position of the 
poor relatively to the feast of the exalted householder. Regarding 
themselves as unworthy, they require the most urgent assurances of 
the gracious disposition of the Lord, that they are to have a share 
in the feast despised by the satiated rich men. Traits which thus 
fall in, unforced, with the aim and tendency of the parable, are not 
to be overlooked. Finally, the determination of God as to excluding 
from the feast is also (ver. 24) brought forward. The words λέγω 
ὑμῖν, I say unto you, do not establish the position that Jesus is in 
this verse addressing the Pharisees, for although in ver. 23 the dis- 
course of the master is directed merely to a single servant, yet is 
this individual the representative of several. The words “none of 
these men who were invited,” (οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων τῶν κεκλημέ- 
νων), absolutely require that we view them as the conclusion of the 
parable. It is certain at the same time that the reference to the 
Pharisees might by look and voice have been made sufficiently obvi- 
ous to all, (The exclusion from the feast is moreover to be under- 
stood here in the same way as at Matth. 10, seq., which passage 
may be compared.) 


§ 15. Taz Demanps or Jesus on His Discipuss, 
(Luke xiv. 25-35.) 


The new formula of commencement here (συνεπορεύοντο αὐτῷ 
ὄχλοι πολλοί) again shews us Christ as on a journey. It needed no 
particular remark to inform us that Jesus had left the house of the 
Pharisee (ver. 1), for that is self-evident. Similar circumstances, 
however, again lead our Lord to express the same ideas he had 
uttered at Luke xii. Crowds followed after him with undefined 


δῶ LuKE XIV. 25-27. 


sentiments in his favour, yet irresolute and wavering. ΤῸ them he 
turns with an earnest address, and summons them to a decision, 
As, however, his last hour was now approaching, he exhibits so 
openly the severer aspect of his character, that the uncalled must be 
made to withdraw. And this was better than that the wavering 
should be drawn into an unequal contest (ver. 31, seq). Finally, 
there begins here a new and continuous discourse, which extends 
down to chap. xvii. 10. It differs from the preceding collective dis- 
courses (chap. xi., xii.) in this, that the Saviour appears here as the 
only speaker (except Luke xvii. 5), while there, by means of the 
remarks of interlocutors, we have ἃ formal conversation. Yet our 
Lord’s continued discourse receives modifications in so far, that his 
remarks are addressed now to the Pharisees, now to them with the 
disciples, now to the latter alone. (Comp. Luke xv. 2; xvi.1; 
xvii. 1.) 

Ver. 25-27.—The opening words in which the Saviour states to the 
people the necessity of entire decision, we have already had at Matth. 
x. 387, seq., in the instructions addressed to the apostles. It 1s very 
possible certainly that Jesus repeatedly expressed the same thought, 
especially where he had as we have already remarked on Matth. (wt 
supra),an Old Testament foundation to proceed upon. (Deut, xxxiil. 
9,10.) Again, also, at John xii, 25, the same idea recurs only in 
an altered form. Yet the instructions (Matth. x.) are of such a 
nature, as plainly to bear the character of a compilation, and we have 
here therefore the passage in its original connexion, especially as the 
thought is less in harmony with the circumstances under which the 
apostles were first sent out. As to its exposition, however, all that 
is needful has already been given in our remarks on Matth. x. 37, 
seq., and we need here consider that only which is peculiar to Luke. 
To him belongs the expression μισεῖν, hate, and the extension of the 
hatred to the life (φυχή). This is treated of, however, in a similar 
way, only under different expressions, at Matth. x. 39, for between 
the losing (ἀπολέσαι) his life and hating it, there is no essential dif- 
ference. Instead of hating (μισεῖν), however, Matth. x. 87, has not 
loving father, etc., more than me (μὴ φιλεῖν----πὲρ ἐμέ). It must 
seem a thing of doubtful propriety simply to reduce the positive 
hate to the more negative μὴ φιλεῖν ὑπέρ, not love, etc. The ex- 
pression is too cutting not to have been chosen intentionally ; and 
in this case we have no title to deprive it of its point. And we 
should feel the less scruple in leaving the idea unsoftened, from the 
fact that the Son of love can have enjoined no hatred save that 
which is holy. Howsuch a topic could in the then existing circum- 
stances form the subject of discourse, may be rendered obvious from 
the following considerations. 

Matthew’s representation is so conceived as to exhibit Divine 


Luxe XIV. 25-30. 53 


things, in their relation to the created, as superior, and hence a 
quantitative expression is chosen to describe our love of the one or 
of the other. Luke, however, views—as is equally allowable—the 
Divine and the created as standing in simple and direct opposition 
each other, an attitude which they always assume whensoever the 
latter strives to cease being what it really is—a transitory thing— 
and begins to make itself esteemed eternal and imperishable. From 
this opposition, then, there springs up of necessity the hatred of the 
creature as well as the love of the Divine, according to the principle, 
‘no man can serve two masters, he must hate the one and love 
the other.” (Luke xvi. 13.) The pure love of the Divine, therefore, 
involves necessarily the pure hatred of the sinful, which things created 
become, in sofar as they will make themselves pass for what is eternal. 
The idea, therefore, retains its simple truth when taken with all its 
point, if it be thus paraphrased, ‘‘ He who cometh to me (not out- 
wardly, but with the inward turning of his whole being) must love 
nothing apart from me (but all things 7 me); rather he must be 
able to pass on the tenderest ties of this present life, a judgment so 
discriminating and enlightened by the Spirit (and consequently to 
free himself so far from all the attachment and dependence of feel- 
ing and its implied partialities) as to be capable of purely hating what 
is sinful in them.” Tits does the Saviour in these words demand of 
his followers an exalted point of view, looking down from which they 
may be able clearly to distinguish the Divine from the ungodly, even 
in the nearest of those objects presented to them (and therefore the 
most difficult to be judged of). From this elevation it is possible 
to unite both love and hatred towards the same object, as, for ex- 
ample, our Lord, in regard to Mary his mother, and his disciples, 
hated what was sinful in them as purely as he loved what was 
godly, and hence the command here given does not abrogate the 
precept to “honour father and mother.” -In the unrenewed man, 
on the contrary, neither love nor hatred is pure ; in loving the ob- 
jects of his affection, he loves also their sin ; in hating the objects 
of his dislike, he hates their godliness as well ; it is only the purity 
and discrimination of the Divine Spirit that can teach man to judge 
aright, and to love God and the things of God as decidedly as he 
hates what is ungodly. Thus, it is obvious that we have here no 
command which a natural man standing under the law should 
attempt to put in practice ; for should he make the endeavour, then, 
as the spiritual gift of discrimination is wanting to him,every thing 
must naturally be thrown into confusion, and that which is most 
sacred be perverted into that which is most unholy. (On ver. 27, 
see fuller details at Matth. x. 38.) 

Ver, 28-30,— The way in which the powers of man must bear 
a certain proportion to the magnitude of his undertakings, is ex- 


54 LuKE XIV. 30-33. 


plained by the Saviour in certain parables, which are peculiar to 
Luke. The first is taken from a building, for the completing of 
which the necessary sums of money must be provided. The selec- 
tion of this particular similitude arises perhaps from the frequent 
comparison of internal spiritual effort and labour to an edifice 
(οἰκοδομή), and especially to a temple (1 Cor. in. 10, seq.) The 
πύργος, tower, is to be understood of a great palace-like edifice ; for 
the object of the parable requires something extraordinary which 
cannot be reached by common means, (The καθίσας ψηφίζειν sets 
forth exact painstaking care in the reckoning—The substantive 
ἀπαρτισμός, from ἀπαρτίζειν = ἐκτελεῖν, is found only here.) 

_ Ver. 31-33.—The second and also very graphic similitude is 
taken from a conflict, which a man undertakes only when he be- 
lieves himself possessed of powers at least in some measure adequate. 
Two princes are represented as at war, and if one of them feel him- 
self weak, he sues for peace. (Συμβάλλειν εἰς πόλεμον, μάχην is a pure 
Greek form of expression.) The application, however, of these two 
comparisons to the followers of Christ (ver. 33) is not altogether so 
clear. Christ requires, in connexion with ver. 26 and 27, the re- 
nouncing all one’s own possessions (ὠποτάσσεσθαι πᾶσι τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ 
ὑπάρχουσι), inasmuch as he wishes to engross alone the love of man, 
The forsaking, however, appears merely negative, while in the para- 
bles there is demanded a positive quality, namely, power. But 
even the renunciation of one’s possessions requires spiritual power 
also ; for these should not be viewed as isolated, but as conjoined 
with the whole world, and this again as in connexion with the prince 
of this world (ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου). The comparison repre- 
sents the struggle to be undertaken as so great for the reason, that 
it must be entered into against a mighty kingdom and its prince, 
and can therefore be successful only if man bear within him a 
stronger power. This explanation also clears up the obscure point, 
how the Saviour should in these parables seemingly attribute to 
man the power of accomplishing a work so difficult (as represented 
in ver. 26, 27). The scope of the parable is obviously to show that 
a rigorous impartial examination brings man to the conviction that 
he is as incapable in his own strength of overcoming the dominion 
of earth and sense, as a king with ten thousand men would be to 
conquer twenty thousand.* The consciousness, however, of our own 
inability should lead us to seek a higher power, to attach ourselves 
to the great kingdom of light and its prince, which, under all cir- 
cumstances, overthrows the kingdom of darkness. In connexion 


* Hence Augustine (Confess. viii. 6) says with great truth of some persons who had 
begun in faith the conflict with the old man, “edificabant turrim sumptu idoneo, relins 
quendi omnia sua et sequendite.” The giving up of one’s own is identical with the lay< 
ing hold of Christ. 


Luxe XIV. 30-35; XV. 1. 55 


with what precedes (ver. 26, 27), the parables thus virtually declare : 
“ΤῊ wishing to follow me, ye undertake a contest which ye are un- 
able to carry through ; attain first’ to the conviction of your own 
weakness, and seek, the higher power of the Spirit ; then shall ye 
be qualified for the kingdom of God.” 

Ver. 34, 35.—Here follow most appropriately the concluding 
words which Matthew has embodied in the Sermon on the Mount 
(v. 13), and which Mark (ix. 29) has arranged in another connexion. 
They are in themselves of such a kind that we can suppose them 
spoken by the Saviour on various occasions, like the “he that hath 
ears,” etc., at the close of this section. At all events, they stand in 
Luke in a very appropriate connexion. For the subject spoken of 
(ver. 26, 27) had been admission into the company of disciples, and 
the needful qualifications, Very appropriate, therefore, is the 
remark, that great and noble as was the call, like the salt of the 
earth, to act with quickening and strengthening power on the mass, 
so great also would be the danger if a man did not fulfil that voca- 
tion, for in that case he would not only accomplish nothing for the 
body, but bring injury upon himself. Thus these words repeat the 
earnest admonition contained in the first verses of the section, 
rather to abandon the purpose of following Jesus than enter on it 
with divided hearts. (On the explanation, compare the details at 
Matth. v. 18, and at Mark ix. 49.) 


§ 16. ParaBLes RELATING TO THE ComMPAssIONATE LovE oF Gop. 
(Luke xv. 1-32.) 


In the words of transition ἧσαν δὲ ἐγγίζοντες, and drew near, etc., 
there is no distinct statement of the relation between the preced- 
ing and following portions. We might suppose that a space of time 
intervened. But the contrast between the preceding and the fol- 
lowing parables, makes it in the highest degree probable that they 
are closely connected. [?] For, while at xiv. 28, seq. there was set 
forth the stern severity of purpose required in order to confess 
Christ and follow him, as the opposite and supplementary side of 
the picture, that compassionate love is now brought forward which 
is displayed by the Saviour in calling to himself the poor and 
miserable, The same demand is made of these as of those to whom 
the parables of building the tower and the conflict were addressed ; 
but to these miserable ones the demand is not as it was to the un 
decided and the irresolute, something burdensome, but it is to them 
a gain and a pleasure to be permitted to forsake all and serve him 
alone whom their soul loves. The compassionate love of God which 


56 Luxe XV. 1-7. 


forms the contrast to the hard-hearted Pharisees, is met by the 
complete self-surrender of the lost one (ver. 21), which stands op- 
posed to the calculating adherence of the wavering (xiv. 26, seq.), 
inasmuch as he pleads for that service of God as an act of grace, 
which to the others is a burdensome duty. In the first two parables 
the former reference predominates ; in opposition to the Pharisees 
with their cold condemnations of men, God appears as the compas- 
sionate Being who lovingly receives the lost to himself; the third, 
in addition carries out carefully the second point of contrast, viz., 
the glad reception of the Gospel by the miserable. 

Ver. 1, 2.—As Jesus finished the preceding discourses, spoken 
doubtiess after the day’s journey had: been completed, there gather- 
ed around him a company of men really in need of aid, not with the 
view of insidiously listening to him, but of receiving from him life 
and spirit (ἀκούειν αὐτοῦ)δ. Among these were publicans (τελῶναι) 
(see on Matth. v. 46), and other persons, who more or less grossly 
had transgressed the law. For, in every case where the ὡμαρτωλός, 
sinner, and the δίκαιος, just (ver. 7), are set in contrast, we are to 
trace in the former the outward and visible transgression of the law, 
as in the latter the idea of the outward observance of the law. 
Gross forms of transgression are not excluded here, as is shewn ob- 
viously by the parable of the lost son, who is intentionally described 
as one who had devoured his living with harlots (ver. 30). On this 
contrast depends the whole point of these three parables. The 
Pharisees, in the consciousness (not merely hypocritical) of their 
righteousness, despised the sinners (ὁμαρτωλούς) to whom righteous- 
ness according to the law was in fact wanting. But, the relation 
in which the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of faith 
stand to each other, is the very point on which the following para- 
bles are intended to cast light. (Διαγογγύξζω is—= to the more com- 
mon γογγύζω, to murmur, to be averse. ἹΠροσδέχεσθαι and συνεσθίειν 
denote every kind of contact, closer or more remote ; προσδέχεσθαι 
isto the frequently occurring δέχεσθαι [comp. Matth. x. 40], in 
the sense of to render the services of love, which presupposes an in- 
clination of mind. The term συνεσθίειν points to closer contact in 
continuous intercourse.) There is truth in the Pharisaic principle 
of abstaining from intercourse with sinful and defiled men, if it pro- 
ceed from anxiety to avoid being tempted by their sins. In them, 
however, it was the result of haughty feeling which kept them at a 
distance from such unfortunate men, even when their minds shewed 
a susceptibility for something better. 

Ver. 3-7.—The first parable recounted to the Pharisees by Jesus, 
(εἶπε πρὸς αὐτόυς ver. 8 compared with xvi, 1), is drawn from a figure 
. already frequent in the Old Testament, which compares the relation 
between God and the people of Israel to that between a shepherd 


Luxe XV. 3-7. 5T 


and his flock. ven for the very form of viewing the comparison 
which is here carried out, the Old Testament furnishes analogies 
(Jerem. 1.6; Ezek. xxxiv. 11, 12,16). The main reference of the 
parable then it is quite impossible to mistake, inasmuch as the lost 
sheep which the shepherd seeks after, is the same with the sinners 
whom the Saviour receives in love, while the Pharisees despise them. 
But the separate references call for closer examination, For, first, 
it is a question how the seeking and finding of the lost sheep on the 
part of the shepherd stands connected with the repentance which 
at ver. 7 and 10 is attributed to the sinner, for, the parable men- 
tions nothing of a change of state on the part of the lost one. <Ac- 
cording to the meaning of the parable, however, the labour of the 
shepherd in seeking and finding the sheep must be understood of 
God’s operations on the sinner’s heart, through which he awakens 
in him repentance. This parable, therefore, forms in this respect 
a contrast to the following one of the lost son, which represents not 
what God does, but what man does in the work of conversion. In 
a similar way (as was remarked on Matth. xiii. 44, seq.) do the 
parables of the treasure in the field, and the merchant seeking pearls, 
stand mutually related to each other. In the second place, there is 
set before us, not merely the seeking of the lost sheep, but also the 
leaving (ver. 4) of the ninety and nine. To this refers, on the one 
hand, the contrast between ἔρημος, desert, and oixoc, house, and on 
the other, the circumstance that at ver, 7 the returning sinner is 
elevated more highly than those who never were lost. (This ideais 
more fully carried out in the parable of the lost son, ver. 22, seq.) 
This certainly seems strange when we consider that those who are 
not lost are described as “just persons, who need no repentance” 
(δίκαιοι, οἵτινες οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσι μετανοίας), and as they had in fact 
never wandered from the close fellowship of the flock, they thus 
deserved praise for their faithfulness. But in the mutual relations 
of the law and Gospel, we find a solution of this difficulty, while 
we yet retain the proper import of the parable. For the law cer- 
tainly carries with it this design, to incite man to keep it, and if he 
do keep it he acquires the righteousness of the law, and needs no re- 
pentance in regard to its positive transgression. This righteousness, 
however, is incapable of leading to that higher life which the Gospel 
demands, but which it also bestows where there is a susceptibility 
for it. There are only two ways in which this can arise, either 
through such rigour in the observances of the law, that a man can- 
not satisfy himself with an exterior legality (as the Pharisees did), 
but must strive also after an ¢nward conformity to that law; or 
when, left to himself, he falls into sin. In the first case, he soon ex- 
periences his inability to subjugate tbe hidden world within him, 
and thus the law works the ἐπίγνωσις τῆς ἁμαρτίας, knowledge of sin 


58 Luke ΧΥ͂. 8-11. 


(Rom. iii. 20), and such a just man (see on Luke i. 5) may then pos- 
sess at the same time true longing and susceptibility for the atone- 
ment. In the second case, however (which is that here intended), 
the striking and marked transgression of the law palpably brings his 
sin home to a man, and he is brought also to repentance, inasmuch 
as, where sin was powerful, there grace often shews itself the more 
powerfully (Rom. v. 20). In both cases, however, repentance estab- 
lishes the possibility of a transition into a state of spiritual life, that 
of regeneration, more perfect than mere legal righteousness can 
reach ; whither this latter leads is shewn by the righteous brother 
(ver. 25, seq.) in the third parable. Thus what the Saviour means 
to shew the Pharisees is this, that these sinners whom they despised 
could, through the mercy of God, be elevated to a higher state of 
spiritual life than it was possible for them to reach in their present 
condition. That they also could come to repentance, however, if 
they would lay aside their coldness and hardness of heart, is inti- 
mated at ver. 31. Finally, we must not in the parable overlook the 
χαρὰ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, yoy in heaven (ver. 7), ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, before the angels of God (ver. 10), with which ver. 22 seq. 
should be compared. The joy of these Divinely compassionate 
beings forms a most strongly marked contrast to the vexation of 
the Pharisees because sinners were received (ver, 2, 25, seq.) The 
kingdom of God thus appears standing in mutual connexion and 
living unity ; if one member rejoices, all members rejoice with it, 
Heaven and earth are joined together by the bond of perfectness— 
love. Consequently, the absence of love must be seen by the Phari- 
sees as implying ungodliness and exclusion from the lively fellow- 
ship of heaven. (The comparison is, finally, found at Matth. xviii. 
12, seq., and incorporated with the context there. It needs no 
proof, however, that here in Luke it holds its original position.) 

Ver. 8-10.—The second parable of the lost drachma is obscure. 
For, I cannot persuade myself that it contributes no new feature to 
the general picture which the three similitudes hold forth, and that 
consequently the contrast between the woman and the man (ver. 4) 
and the ten and hundred, is merely accidental. The woman denotes 
probably the church in its ideal character, as caring with a mother’s 
faithfulness for her children. In the gradually diminishing num- 
(100, 10, 2) there is implied, perhaps, an anti-climax which indi- 
cates a possibility of falling away from wider or narrower spheres of 
spiritual life, but that for all these relations, grace is revealed to 
aid us. 

Ver. 11-19.—It is much easier to trace what is peculiar in the 
third parable, of the lost Son. It sets forth accurately the gradual 
process of his going astray, and his return to repentance and faith, 
while in the first parable they are merely intimated, and prominence 


Luke XV. 11-19. 59 


given, instead, to the efforts of the Father. Here these are por- 
trayed only as manifested at the moment of the Son’s return, and 
then, in parallelism with the Father's love, there is the severity of 
the other [the still more lost] son, towards whom, however, the love 
of the Father still continues the same. With regard to the Phari- 
sees (ver. 1), the first half of the parable is an apology for the pub- 
licans and sinners whom they despised, masmuch as it partly shews 
that they are capable of nobler impulses to repentance and faith, 
and partly, that God prizes and willingly receives them. In the 
strongest manner, then, are these sinners admonished and encou- 
raged, in the first half of the parable, freely and joyfully to embrace 
the offered grace. The second half places their own likeness before 
the eyes of the Pharisees, and contains a reproof to them. The 
commencement of the parable—‘ A certain man had two sons”— 
purposely places the two parties (the δίκαιοι and the ἁμαρτωλοί) on a 
similar footing in relation to God. The description of the sons 
themselves, however, by the terms younger, and older (ver. 11, 25) 
may apply appropriately to the heathen and the Jews, although 
primarily the connexion does not lead us to this contrast. A para- 
ble which, like that of the lost son, represents the relation of man 
to God in its essential points, naturally finds, everywhere, its fitting 
application wherever these points are developed. The abandoning 
of his father’s house on the part of the son points at once to man’s 
falling away from God, out of which all his subsequent backsliding 
gradually developes itself. (In τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας, ἐπιβάλ-- 
Aevv is used intransitively. Ina similar way, Tob. vi. 13, σοὶ ἐπιβάλ--: 
λει ἡ κλορονομία αὐτῆς.---Βίος as frequently = οὐσία, ὑπάρχοντα, Luke 
viii. 43 ; xxi. 4.) In describing the living in sin, the strong expres- 
sion ζῶν ἀσώτως is designedly chosen, and, according to ver. 30, we 
rust retain it in all its force, for to this the argumentation of 
Christ refers, to represent one who is unquestionably a sinner as 
capable of returning to God. (Ἄσωτος from σώζω, like perditus, pri- 
marily abandoned, ruined, then dissipated, profligate.) Without, 
then, any express mention of it, there is in this parable also a 
reference to the repentance-awakening grace of God which follows 
the lost son. Outward distress, poverty, 1] hunger, the felt conse- 
quences of his sin, first awaken in him, according to the Divine dis- 
pensation, the consciousness of guilt, and that this consciousness 
may, in the mind of the sinner, combine with faith in the love of 
God, presupposes the revelation of that love whose consummation is 
exhibited in the offering up of God’s Son, John iii. 16. The aim of 
the parable, however, leaves this in the background, whence, also, 
it can only be supplied from the general doctrine of Scripture, and 
is here silently understood. (Ver. 15, κολλᾶσθαι = to the Hebrew 
p2".) He sank down to the lowest depth of earthly misery. (Ke- 


60 LuKE XV. 19-30. 


ράτια, as applied to the tree which is found under the name of kepa- 
τωνία, kepwria, denotes the fruit of the plant known under the name 
of carob-bean, which in the East is commonly used as fodder.) This 
suffering, however, awoke life in the depth of his soul ; with sincere 
self-condemnation and deep repentance, there was combined faith 
in the Father. In this frame of mind, then, were given the ele- 
ments of his salvation. (In the characteristic expression, coming to 
himself (ἔρχεσθαι εἰς ἑαυτόν), we find his previous state indicated as 
that of one who had lost himself. In ver, 17, dptoc, bread, as being 
human food, stands in contrast to κεράτια, which are intended for 
lower animals.—His repentance is proved to be genuine, by the ex- 
press reference to the Divine will, implied in the words “ against 
heaven.” He discerned sin in its root and essence as the transgres- 
ion of the Divine will. The words ἐνώπιόν cov are parallel to the 
Hebrew :#$, which at 1 Sam. xx. 1, occurs in this very connexion 
PAS UE cnNeno A) 

Ver, 20-24.—If the first movements of repentance are not in 
the above account expressly traced to God, his Divine compassion 
and paternal love in receiving the penitent are all the more care- 
fully and touchingly depicted in what follows. (As to σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, 
see on Luke i. 78.) Divine grace hastens to aid the returning sin- 
ner, and overwhelms him with its benefits. Thus what the law in 
its severity could not do—namely, awaken the love of holiness 
within—is effected by grace. It fills the heart of the man who 
sought happiness in sin and found only bitterness, with a peace and 
sweetness which tell him that here is to be found what he had 
erroneously sought in the creature. (The individual traits in ver, 
22 are so clearly defined, that we cannot mistake them. The στολὴ 
πρώτη, best robe, denotes the righteousness of God [Rev. i. 18 ; vii. 
13 ; xix. 8], the δακτύλιον, the signet-ring, denotes the seal of the 
Spirit, the testimony that a man belongs to God, the ὑποδήματα, 
shoes [Kiphes. vi. 15] denote the power of walking in the ways of 
God.—The entertainment made ready points to the δεῖπνον to which 
the kingdom of God is so often compared. Σιτευτός from σῖτος 
means fed or fattened with corn. The article indicates that it was 
the single and therefore more valuable animal which the Father, in 
the fulness of his joy, dedicated to the Son.) 

Ver. 25-80,—This account of the younger son’s return is followed 
by a portrayal of his elder brother’s conduct. The latter was in truth 
righteous according to the law; he had neither left his father nor 
transgressed his commandment, but this legal righteousness had 
rendered his nature cold and unamiable, and induced him without 
pity to condemn his brother. Amidst the general joy, his soul was 
full of envy and jealousy. A most graphic picture of those Phari- 
sees who despised the publicans, and even of the Jews in their con- 


LUKE XY. 25-32. 61 


tempt of the heathen world! In marked contrast to the lowly 
submissiveness of the younger son, who bows unconditionally to the 
will of the father (ver. 18,19), there comes out the pride of the 
elder, who even presumed in his rage to cast blame on the father’s 
appointments, censuring on the one hand, his mildness to the 
brother who had gone astray; and on the other, his (alleged) 
severity towards himself. [We remark especially in the conduct of 
the elder son the following traits. He is at the outset so estranged 
from his father, that on hearing the sounds of rejoicing, he goes for 
information, not to his father, but to a servant. The answer given 
enrages him.; he feels that the newly returned is dearer to his 
father than he himself ever was. On his father’s condescending to 
come out to him, he recounts to him his own services, and reckons 
the deserved reward—by kids! which his father should have killed 
for him. ΤῸ have lived in the house of his father he counts as no- 
thing! v. 80. The words “ this thy son,” are a rude and imperti- 
nent designation of his brother. He does not vouchsafe to him the 
name of brother, and wantonly insults his father, for the “this thy 
son” is as much as to say, “‘ he may be good enough to be thy son ; 
he is not fit to be my brother.” Finally, the words who hath de- 
voured, etc., are a gross exaggeration of his brother’s sins, For 
“riotous living” does not necessarily imply πορνεία, And how did 
he know so accurately what had been the conduct of his younger 
brother? We have here a vivid picture of the honorable worldling, 
who, when a sinner repents, exaggerates his former life of profligacy, 
in the vain idea that the violence of the disease will reflect discredit 
on the physician who has healed it.] 

Ver. 31, 82.—The concluding verses add an entirely new feature 
to the picture. The compassion of the father who reproves sin with 
tenderness, remains unchanged even when brought to bear on the 
audacity of the elder son, who was bold enough to condemn his 
proceedings, an intimation being thus given to the Pharisees that 
for them, as well as others, Divine grace set open the way of repent- 
ance, but that in their case equally with that of the sinners, it was 
the path to faith. For, what they were outwardly, and in a form 
more gross, that the Pharisees also were inwardly, and in a way 
more refined ; and it is just when assuming such forms that sin be- 
comes most dangerous and ruinous, partly because its real nature is 
detected with greater difficulty, and partly because, being more 
spiritual in its nature, it takes a deeper hold at once on the soul 
and on the outward life. (On this point see at Matth. xxi. 31, in 
which passage this idea is set forth in express terms.) The father, 
moreover, in his reproof brings forward certain things which were 
wrong in the position of the elder son. In the true paternal feeling 
he views the son as his fellow-possessor (πάντα τὰ ἐμὰ, σά ἐστιν), but 


62 Luxe XY. 31, 82; XVI. 1 


the latter, in the spirit of a slave, draws shyly back, and does not 
venture in his father’s sense to view these possessions as belonging 
to himself ; but stands there avariciously and eagerly demanding, 
in the confidence of his own self-righteousness, that the father 
should urge on his acceptance that which in a filial spirit he should 
himself have asked for. . Thus the perverse position in which the 
Pharisees had placed themselves towards God and men, is in these 
words made known to them, and a powerful exhortation to repent- 
ance is brought home to their hearts. The account given by Paul 
of the inability of the law to work out righteousness (as set forth in 
Rom. iii. and Gal. iii.), and of the necessity for another way of sal- 
vation through faith and grace, forms the best commentary on these 
parables. 


§ 17. ParaBLES RELATING TO THE COMPASSIONATE LOVE OF 
OUR FELLOW-MEN. 


(Luke xvi. 1-31.) 


The contents of the following parable, belonging apparently to 
an entirely different department, might at the first glance render it 
doubtful whether or not there exists here any demonstrable link of 
connexion. But inasmuch as nothing is indicated in the way of con- 
clusion or the commencement of anything new, the reference of chap. 
xvi. 1, 14, 15, to chap. xv. 1, makes it probable that a connexion 
really does exist ; for Jesus, according to these passages, appears to 
be continually speaking before the same hearers, only addressing 
himself now more especially to one, now to another party of 
them. Nor can one fail to see, on a closer examination, how the 
subject-matter is connected with what goes before. The whole xvi. 
chap. forms a parallel to the xv. What we were taught in the lat- 
ter (the xv.) of God’s compassionate love, is set forth in the xvi. 
chap. as the object for man to aim at in his own sphere. This re- 
ference to human affairs the Saviour was led very naturally to make, 
by the position of the Pharisees and Publicans. The former, in 
their unfeeling coldness, were avaricious (xvi. 14), for which reason 
this tendency had already been exhibited at xv. 29 in the elder 
brother, who was intended to represent the Pharisees. The Publi- 
cans, on the contrary, though for the most part they had become 
rich by unrighteous transactions, yet practised charity in their sin- 
cere repentance—for example, Zaccheeus, Luke xix. 8. Hence our 
Lord in the following parables teaches the right use of earthly pos- 
sessions. In the first, however, respecting the unjust steward, the 
representation given of such a nature, that true charity, which, when 


Luxe XVI. 1. 63 


embodied in outward acts, takes the form of an expenditure of one’s 
possessions (the proper contrast to the false expenditure of his goods 
on the part of the lost son), is seen to be at the same time true 
wisdom, while: the want of charity is folly. This view implied, in 
the first place, a defence of the despised Publicans, who are to be 
conceived of as belonging to the disciples (ver. 1), with an admoni- 
tion urging them to continue the same use of their property, while 
it involved, on the other hand, a rebuke to the Pharisees, who con- 
sidered themselves as wise as they were righteous (ver. 15). Inas- 
much as they wished half to serve God as representing the theocracy, 
but at the same time half to serve mammon (ver. 13), they acted 
unrighteously, and became fools in their false wisdom. The final 
results of such false wisdom are delineated in the following parable 
(ver. 19, seq.), by the remark which points out the important con- 
sequences which true wisdom may produce in behalf of man. (With 
an allusion to the δέχεσθαι εἰς τὰς αἰωνίους σκηνάς, ver. 9.) Should 
we ask, however, on what grounds the Lord did not choose a com- 
parison to shew the nature of true wisdom, which might at the same 
time have exhibited righteousness, and consequently a liberal ap- 
plication of his own means, and not those of another ; the cause of 
it can have been no other than this, that it would have been impos- 
sible in that way to bring clearly to view that twofold reference to 
God and the world which to the Saviour was precisely the point of 
greatest importance. In ver. 13 there lies the key to our under- 
standing the peculiar form of the parable. For, both parties, the 
Publicans as well as the Pharisees, stood as it were between two 
poles. On the one side, they stood in connexion with the world and 
earthly ties, on the other, with God and Divine things. The only 
difference lay in this, that the Publicans (those, namely, who were 
here present whom Jesus kindly received [xv. 1], and who are now 
to be reckoned among the disciples [xvi. 1]), were outwardly, indeed 
deeply involved in the world, but their inner man burned with 
earnest spiritual longing ; the Pharisees, on the other hand, were 
outwardly chained to things Divine, as the born representatives of 
the theocracy, but inwardly they were attached to the world, and 
they even made use of their spiritual character for earthly ends. In 
order to teach, therefore, the right course in their position betwixt 
two such attracting forces, our Lord selects the precise representa- 
tion here employed, which from two opposite points of view, and, 
for the benefit as well of the Publicans as of the Pharisees, sets in 
a clear light the idea contained in ver. 13, “No man can serve two 
masters, he must despise the one in order to cleave to the other.” 
Man has not and never can have anything of his own (comp. on 
Luke xiv. 33), he is for ever a mere steward (οἰκονόμος). ‘Che only 
question is whose steward he considers himself, whether of the God 


64 Luxe XVI, i. 


of tender love (whom chap. xv. sets forth), or of the hard hearted 
world and its prince. In reference to the Publicans, therefore, the 
parable contains the exhortation entirely to renounce the master 
with whom, by outward relations, they still stand associated. In 
regard to the Pharisees, however, it involves the reproving declara- 
tion that their half-heartedness could lead to no true service of God. 
According to this view, the rich man (ver. 1) is nothing but the 
world or its representative the prince of this world, to whose service 
the Publicans in their external relations are supposed to belong. 
To this master, according to ver. 18, God, as the other and real 
master (the representative of the δεχόμενοι εἰς τὰς αἰωνίους σκηνάς. 
ver. 9) is to be conceived as contrasted, This true Lord has servica 
rendered to him in the right way, even by the prudent dissipater 
of the possessions of the rich man (διασκορπίζων τὰ ὑπάρχοντα τοῦ 
πλουσίου), who despises the one in order to belong wholly to the 
other, and with the possessions of the one labours for the objects of 
the other. That man acts, however, 72 opposition to his own in- 
terests (and is thus unwise) who, like the Pharisees, seeks to place 
the service of the one on a level with that of the other. The figure 
of unrighteousness could thus be employed here without causing 
any misunderstanding, for this reason, that it so markedly expresses 
the felt inward experience of the man who feels himself placed be- 
tween two such opposite attracting forces, On the other hand, 
however, to expend the things which belong to the world in behalf 
of God and his objects can never be to act falsely, for the world and 
its prince are not the true possessors. As God thus is in the last 
instance the rightful Lord, such an overreaching of the world as 
Jesus here teaches is the way truly to uphold what is right ; all is 
rendered back to God to whom all belongs. There was no reason 
to apprehend, however, such a perversion of his-words as that it was 
permitted a man to deprive others of their property in order thus to 
expend it, for this was already sufficiently prohibited by the com- 
πος “thou shalt not steal”’ The very delineation of the 
ayjustice in lines so vivid excludes all possibility of such a misun- 
derstanding. According to this view, the parable though referring 
primarily to temporal relations, possesses its everlasting truth ; in 
things temporary are shadowed forth those which are abiding. For, 
in the same light in which the Publicans are here exhibited, do men 
stand at all times, in so far as they possess property.. Possession in 
itself, as a circumscribed and exclusive right to certain things, is the 
product of sin in the world of which man knows nothing in the 
kingdom of God.* While maintaining, therefore, such a possessory 


* Tt is chiefly the difference of opinion in regard to the rights cf property which 
makes it so difficult for expositors to agree in their understanding of this parable. Ac- 
cording to the prevailing opinion, it is only an immoderate possession which deserves 


Luxe XVI. 1. 65 


right, man is steward of the prince of this world. If he prove true 
to this master, he works in his interest, and so heaps up possessions 
upon possessions ; but if he prove wntrue to him, and pass over as 
a member into the kingdom of God, into the service, consequently, 
of another lord, then he labours in the interest of this new master, 
and squanders the possessions of the first, expending them on spi- 
ritual objects. This points again to xiv. 83, where the children of 
the kingdom were exhorted to renounce all things (ὠποτάσσεδθαι 
πᾶσι), and by means of this explanation the connexion is seen to be 
carried thus far back. 

The capital mistake, as it seems to me, in the common exposi- 
tion of the parable, is that under the rich man it understands, God.* 
In this view of it we cannot conceive how two masters should be 
spoken of at ver. 18, or how we should be taught to squander pos- 
sessions belonging to the God of love. For if this referred to a 
beneficent expenditure of one’s means, the steward acting thus 
would not have been displaced by God ; but if to a false, wasteful 
prodigality of one’s possessions, such as was condemned in the case 
of the lost son, we cannot reconcile this with ver. 8-13, in which his 
faithfulness in minor matters is praised. For, that a parable should 
teach precisely the opposite of what the narrative itself mentions, 
can never be maintained after the striking train of reasoning by 
Schultz (on the parable of the unjust steward, p. 98). The rich man 
can represent only the world in whose service the Publicans stood. 
To spend their wealth in such a way as to devote it to the interests 
of their higher Lord, and at the same time to their own (real and 
everlasting) benefit, is the only thing that could be enjoined on 
these men for imitation.| The exposition of Schultz (ut supra), is, 


blame, and from a legal point of view this is correct; just as perjury aloneis held to deserve 
punishment. But Christ looks on humanity in a point of view far higher, and contem- 
plates the original state of Paradise as restored. According to this view, no mention can 
be made of any right of possession which excludes from others the use of the property 
possessed, and it isin this way that our Lord here treats the relation in which man stands 
to the things of this world. 

* This explanation Jensen has even yet retained in his valuable Treatise (in the 
€tudien und Kritiken by Ullman, ii. vol., 4th part, p. 699, seq.), to the disadvantage of 
his general view. On the other hand, there lies much truth in the polemical discussion 
which the author carries out against Schleiermacher. In exactly the same way does 
Schneckenburger (Contrib. p. 55) understand by the πλούσιος God. Very arbitrarily, 
therefore, must he hold ver. 13 to be a later interpolation. 

+ De Wette’s opinion that the rich man in the parable was intended to have no 
meaning, might more readily satisfy us were it not that the arbitrary disjunction of par— 
ticular features from the parable favours a superficial exposition of Scripture. Substan- 
tially the exposition of the parable is entirely given up by De Wette, inasmuch as ver. 
10-18, which can alone furnish the key to our understanding of it, are explained by him 
as standing quite unconformably to the remaining portions. He thinks also that there is 
in the narrative itself an internal improbability which the expositor must be satisfied to 
take ashe finds. The parable, in the opinion of this learned critic, contains something 


Vou. Il.—5 


66 Luxe XVI, 1. 


in my view, essentially the right one, only this learned critic ne- 
glected clearly to refer the ee Pisses to the world, and was 
therefore, in his otherwise correct explanation, forced to have 
recourse to this turn, “that it is not the man’s whole corrupt na- 
ture and conduct, nor his worldly point of view, nor his profligate 
ungodly feeling and mean selfishness which is praised, but his well- 
considered, effective mode of dealing with the possessions still stand- 
ing at his disposal.” (Ut supra, p. 103.) It seems to me undeni- 
able, that the meaning of the parable will fit still more closely into 
the narrative which contains it, if we hold that the rich man stands 
parallel to the world and its Prince. By Schulthess (Theol. Annals 
Tubig., 1827, March, p. 218 seq.) this view of the reference has 
been rightly brought forward. The explanation of Schleiermacher 
(on the writings of Luke, p. 202 seq.), which explains the Publicans 
by the steward, and the Romans by the master, is not specifically 
different from my own view,* inasmuch as the Romans form the 
representatives of the world. I cannot, however, accord with 
Schleiermacher in attempting to soften the character of the unjust 
steward, In the very aggravation of his injustice lies the whole 
point of the narrative.f [Also Olshausen’s explanation is artificial 
and unsatisfactory. The parable (like that of the hard-hearted 
judge), belongs to the class of parables in which we are not to trace 
a correspondence in every individual feature, but find a contrasting 
significancy in the whole. The master τσ τς neither God nor 
Satan, but simply ah earthly master, and "eae serves to intro- 
duce the narrative. The unjust steward is not so much an image, 
as an example of a man who, in the sphere of unrightousness and 
sin, exercises the virtue of prudence, and thus deserves praise even 
from the very man whom he has deceived. From him the Christian 
should learn prudence, but in the sphere of righteousness. He 
should so manage with the earthly possessions acquired by unright- 
cousness, as to acquire for himself friends in heaven—prudently and 
justly (v. 9). Hs prudence is to consist in fidelity (v. 10), while 
that of the worldling consists in faithlessness. 'The whole admoni- 
tion is necessary, since (v. 8) the children of this world are wont to 
be wiser in their sphere than the children of God in their sphere of 


paradoxical, and yet it gives us this idea, which is worthy of Christ, that men should ex- 
pend their earthly means for the advancement of the kingdom of God. 

* Schleiermacher rests satisfied with the contrarieties most near at hand without 
ascending, as it seems to rae we must do, to these opposite forces in their final and high- 
est form. 

+ As to the many other (for the most part wholly untenable) expositions of the para- 
ble, compare the well-known treatises by Schreiter and Keil. The following recent ex- 
planations of this difficult passage are also worth reading, viz. by Grossman, Lips. 1823 ; 
Niedner, Lips. 1826; Zyro Stud. und Kritik. Jahrg. 1831, ἢ. 4; and Bahnmeyer (Bahn- 
meyer in Kleiber’s Stud. vol. i., part 1, p. 27 seq.) 


Luxrt XVI. 1-3. 67 


righteousness, as in fact it is far more difficult to unite prudence 
with fidelity than with unfaithfulness. | 

Ver. 1.—The expression, ‘‘ he said also to his disciples,” points 
back to xv. 8, where the discourse was directly addressed to the 
Pharisees. Now, in addition to them, the Saviour turns also to his 
disciples in such a way that both parties, Pharisees and Publicans, 
are addressed together, and thus in the parable there may be traced 
a reference to both. The disciples, however, here embrace in the 
widest sense all the adherents of Jesus, both the apostles (who are 
specially mentioned in xvii. 5) and the well-inclined publicans to- 
gether. The Apostles, it might be said, had indeed already prac- 
tised the commandment to free themselves from Mammon (comp. 
on Matth. xix. 27), but on the one hand, they were not as yet in 
their hearts wholly delivered from the love of their possessions, so 
that an admonition to continue in the renunciation of Mammon 
cannot seem inappropriate even for them ; and, on the other, we 
may remember that Judas was included among them, who was still 
the slave of avarice, and the parable may be considered as a warn- 
ing for him—as for the Pharisees. That the certain rich man (ἀν-- 
θρωπός τις πλούσιος), then, cannot have been intended to denote God, 
might be conjectured even from the word tic, certain, which gives a 
certain vagueness to the idea, inconsistent with such an interpreta- 
tion. The words might be translated “a certain rich man, of whom 
there are so many.” Thus such a relation as is common in the 
sinful world, would seem to be intended. The common relations of 
the present world (αἰὼν οὗτος) are intended to be delineated in the 
parable, and therefore, as is the steward, such also is the master 
(Comp. on ver. 8). There is implied, finally, in the idea of the 
steward (as Schulz, ut supra, p. 44, shews) that he is more than a 
mere servant (δοῦλος). He is to be viewed as the administrator and 
curator (of the master who for a season is perhaps absent), and as one, 
therefore, who could the more freely act without control in regard 
to the possessions of his Lord. The steward is thus all the more ap- 
propriately the representative of man, in so far as he has to a certain 
extent the independent management of his possessions. Respecting 
this steward (οἰκονόμος) then, the report went abroad, and there 
were willing informers who carried it to his master, that he wasted 
the property intrusted to him, (Διασκορπίζειν, as at Luke xv. 13. 
Διαβάλλειν, which occurs in the New Testament only here, by no 
means implies calumniating by false reports, but rather informing, 
accusing, even when the accusation is well-founded.) In the case of 
this steward, ἐξ ts intended that this very injustice (ἀδικία), should 
stand forth as a leading feature of his character. 

Ver. 2, 3.—The rich man calls the steward to account (ἀποδιδό-- 
ναι λόγον = διδόναι λόγον, Rom, xiv. 12), and announces to him his 


08 Luxe XYI. 3-8. 


approaching dismissal (οὐ δυνήση ἔτι οἰκονομεῖν) from office. The 
period that had to elapse previous to his removal, the wise steward 
seeks still to employ for his own advantage. The means of support 
which happen to be mentioned (σκάπτειν and ἐπαιτεῖν, which last is = 
bat [Ps. cix. 10], and bears the sense of stipem rogare), the deli- 
cately educated steward finds unsuited to him, partly because he 
was unaccustomed to hard labour, and partly as he feared the 
opinions of men. This representation refers primarily to the com- 
mon mode of thinking of a man, who in a worldly-wise way knew 
how to extricate himself from difficulties, and to cast off everything 
burdensome. 

Ver. 4-7.—Of the liberty still left him in the management of 
the property, the steward makes this use, that he gives abatements 
to the debtors, and by this kindness gains them over to himself. 
(μεθιστάναι properly transfer, as at Coloss. 1. 18, here a softer term 
for depose. So also at Acts xiii, 22.) The debts are to be consid- 
ered as contracted during the time of his stewardship, so that 
these new acts of unfaithfulness entered into the same grand reck- 
oning. (Βάτος = na, according to Ezek. xlv. 14 for fluids. Κόρος = 
sip or "> a measure for dry substances. It is equal to the "πῆ. 
[The debtors had received grain, oil, etc., from the estate, for which 
they were still indebted. The steward returns to each one his bill 
(δέξαι, etc.), and bids him to make out another acknowledging his 
indebtedness for a smaller amount. Thus he remits to each one a 
part of his debt. ] 

Ver. 8—When the Lord (that is the ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος, ver. 1) 
was informed of this new perfidy, he praised the wisdom with which 
he had made himself safe for the future. For as the judge would 
have taken from the steward what he possessed, in order to repay 
his master in some measure for his losses, there remained nothing 
for him to do but to make himself friends by such acts of kindness, 
No one could interfere to prevent them giving to him of their own, 
It might be questionable whether τῆς ἀδικίας should be connected 
with οἰκονόμος or with ἐπήνεσεν. Schleiermacher decides in favour of 
the latter. But the immediately following expression μαμωνᾶς τῆς 
ἀδικίας of ver. 9, and the analogous phrase κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας (Luke 
xviii. 6) are obviously in favour of the connexion with οἰκονόμος, not 
to mention that the succeeding words ὅτε φρονίμως ἐποίησεν do not 
well admit of our assuming the ἀδικία as also an object of praise.* 
The final words of the parabolic narrative, ὅτε φρονίμως ἐποίησεν, be- 
cause he acted prudently, bring forward the lesson it was mainly in- 
tended to teach, namely to inculcate wisdom (the opposite of μωρία). 
Φρόνησις, prudence (n2"2), stands related to σύνεσις, understanding, 


* Precisely in this lies the point that the prudence of the steward was so great that 
for its sake the very master himself praised the intrinsically iniquitious act!—[E. 


LuKE XVI. 8. 69 


precisely as σοφία, wisdom (mm2h) to νοῦς, reason. Prudence de- 
notes that active exercise of the soul’s powers, which shews itself 
especially in duly making use of outward circumstances in attaining 
(good as well as evil) objects. Wisdom denotes the susceptibility of 
she soul to the influences of a higher world. Where the reason is 
pre-eminently active, it is usually difficult to keep the understand- 
ing equally in exercise, and this forms the subject of the Saviour’s 
rebuke in what follows. The admonition is thus analogous to that 
given at Matth. x. 16, “‘ Be ye wise as serpents.” The parable con- 
cludes with the words, “because he acted,” etc., and at ver. 9, there 
follows with “and I say to you” the express application of it for the 
benefit of the disciples. The intervening words, therefore, belong 
neither to the one portion nor the other, but form an intermedi- 
ate remark intended to lead on the hearers to the comprehension of 
the parable. For, the children of this world (υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) 
are so contrasted with the children of light (υἱοὶ τοῦ φωτός), that the 
steward is obviously included in the former, and is placed in oppo- 
sition to the disciples (ver. 1) as the members of the kingdom of 
God. (Comp. as to αἰὼν οὗτος on Matth. xii. 31.) That which 
connects the two is the φρόνησις, prudence, in which the children of 
the world surpass the children of light (Christians are often termed 
the υἱοὶ τοῦ φωτός, John xii. 86, 1 Thess. v. 5, as those who have 
been illuminated by the true light, John i. 4) in all the relations of 
life. (The somewhat obscure expression εἰς τὴν γενεὰν τὴν ἑαυτῶν, 
for their own generation, is to be referred to both parties in such a 
way that to each class there is ascribed a yeved, in regard to which 
they exercise prudence (φρόνησις). It is best to take γενεὰ in the 
common meaning of generation, those of one race living together.) 
Worldly men labour in the spirit of the world and after the fashion 
of the world, in amassing treasures for this earthly life. In this 
respect they often display uncommon prudence. This is easy for 
them, because they suffer the higher powers to slumber, and con- 
centrate all their faculties on earthly things. It is entirely other- 
wise with the members of the kingdom of God ; aiming at a higher 
life they often forget what is prudent in regard to the things of 
earth. The harmonious combination of the two is perfection. The 
connection of this with what follows (ver. 13), however, would lead 
to the inference that the children of this world (υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τού- 
τοῦ) are not to be taken as precisely identical with the wicked 
(πονηροί). For we must ever bear in mind that Jesus had the 
Pharisees in his eye, who vacillated kackwards and forwards between 
God and the world. One who was properly wicked, we must hold 
to be as decided against God, as the child of light is for him. 
Between the two stand the children of this world, belonging, it 
is true, through the general sinfulness of man, to the darkness, but 


70 Luxe XVI. 8, 9. 


not absolutely hostile to the light, striving rather to blend light and 
darkness. In this position stood the Pharisees, and our Lord seeks 
to convince them of the impurity of such a state, and at the same 
time to prevail on the Publicans to decide unreservedly for God. 
Ver. 9.—The words ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς φίλους κι τ. λ., make to your= 
selves friends, etc., are obviously to be completed thus—employ the 
unrighteous mammon in making yourselves friends in the sphere of 
light with as much prudence as did that steward in the sphere of 
sin and darkness, There is thus presupposed as existing in their 
case a mammon of unrighteousness. The sole question that can 
arise is, how far the unrighteous mammon forms here the subject of 
discourse. (Comp. as to μαμωνᾶς on Matth., vi. 24.) The mamnton 
is conceived as something necessarily as such connected with un- 
righteousness ; it is as it were the bond by which every individual 
is bound to the world and its prince. This bond must therefore be 
severed, nay mammon must itself be used with prudence for spi- 
ritual and holy ends. Keeping close to and carrying out the repre- 
sentation of the parable, our Lord views the δέχεσθαι, receiving (ver. 
4) as a consequence of the making of friends. Without such a 
definite intimation by the Saviour himself, one might have been 
tempted to regard this as a mere decoration, The primary difficulty 
here is the ὅταν ἐκλίπητε, when ye fail. For, not to mention the 
reading ἐκμλείπητε, there are good MSS. (such as A. D. L.) which 
read ἐκλίπῃ. In that case μαμωνᾶς or βίος would need to be supplied. 
This reading does not betray itself as an alteration in conformity to 
ver. 4, so as to bring out the meaning, ‘‘ As the steward hopes that 
his friends on his dismissal will receive him, so ought you also to 
make yourselves friends who may receive you if you are reduced to 
starvation.” For, it is altogether inappropriate that a spiritual re- 
ception should be placed in contrast to bodily starvation. Perhaps 
it is a mere mistake of the transcriber, inasmuch as the δέ which 
follows might give occasion for the omission of the te. ’ExAinnre is 
the only reading which agrees with the connexion. It furnishes us 
with the idea that by means of worldly things he may prepare for 
himself assistance to meet his spiritual wants. (Ex/eimery occurs in 
the sense of to want, to be destitute of, for example Luke xxii. 82 ; 
here it means to die. ᾿Βκλείπειν τὸν βίον, originally classical, also 
found in the Septuagint, comp. Gen. xxv. 8; xlix. 30. In the New 
Testament it occurs only here in this sense. The reference to death 
as the moment of reckoning, as well with a view to punishment as 
reward, is in this passage exceedingly appropriate. Comp. in the 
following parable, ver. 22.) Δέχεσθαι εἰς τὰς αἰωνίους σκηνάς, receiving 
into everlasting habitations, with reference to ver. 4, expresses spi- 
ritual aid. There is nothing precisely analogous to it in the New 
Testament, for passages like Heb. viii. 2, Rev. xiii. 6, refer to the 


LuKE XVI, 9-12. 71 


Tabernacle of the Covenant, of which there is no mention made 
here. The nearest parallel is furnished by John xiv. 2, ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ 
Tov πατρός μον μοναὶ πολλαί εἰσιν, in my father’s house, etc. The 
σκηναί denote here the higher and permanent state of being, in op- 
position to the earthly and transitory. There remains, however, 
still a difficulty in the idea, as to how the friends (φίλοι) could re- 
ceive others into everlasting habitations, and who they are whom 
we are to conceive of as thus presented to us. Since the discourse 
is addressed to the disciples, we cannot, as it seems to me, think of 
the apostles, who were included among the disciples, and to them 
as to all the other disciples—especially the rich Publicans—there is 
addressed the exhortation to make friends with mammon. Should 
it appear then improper that the privilege is to be conceded to all 
and every one of receiving into the everlasting habitations, we might 
refer the words to Jesus himself, in union, however, with the inha-: 
bitants of the heavenly world, who previously (xv. 10) and subse- 
quently (xvi. 22) are introduced as actively employed. For, that 
which belongs properly to Christ, may be ascribed also to his people, 
especially to the apostles, in so far as Christ’s strength is conceived 
as purely working in them, and they have received power to bind 
and to loose (Matth. xvi. 19). But as this power was as yet con- 
ferred on them only in hope as it were, since they had not received 
the Holy Ghost (whence also Peter could immediately at Matth. 
xvi. 23 again give Satan access to himself), therefore also is the 
commandment in part addressed to them to make friends with 
mammon. For, were we disposed to consider the apostles alone as 
those receiving into everlasting habitations (δεχόμενοι εἰς τὰς αἰωνίους 
σκηνάς), and the admonition to make friends with mammon as ad- 
dressed solely to the Publicans, the representation given in the 
parables furnishes positively no ground for thus separating into two 
classes the disciples mentioned at ver. 1. 

Ver. 10-12.—The following words are calculated to dispel any 
doubts which have not yet been obviated as to the exposition of the 
parable. For our Lord here first puts forward the general senti- 
ment expressed in the form of a proverb—gives it a turn so as to 
apply it to the parable, and then reverts again to the general prin- 
ciple. It is obvious at a glance that the ἐλάχιστον, least, and 
ἀλλότριον, another's, correspond to the ἄδικος μαμῶνας, unrighteous 
mammon, but the πολύ, much, to ἀληθινόν, true, and the ὑμέτερον, 
your own. In the use of the former, faithfulness is enjoined, that 
aman may make himself worthy of the latter, deliverance from an- 
other’s is represented as the condition of a man’s being intrusted 
with his own, just as at xiv. 33. (The expressions ἀλλότριον and 
ὑμέτερον refer to the nobler nature in man which has been awakened 
in the μαθηταί ; theirs is the eternal—dAnOcvév—that which is akin 


72 Luxe XVI. 13, 14. 


to them ; the earthly is the alien, ἀλλότριον) The conduct of a 
child of light therefore, who, after the manner of the steward, scat- 
ters the mammon, is designated fidelity, the keeping of it together 
would be unfaithfulness. Only through such an application of 
things less important for Divine objects can we make ourselves 
worthy to receive higher blessings, 7. e., to manage aright heavenly 
powers of soul in humility and love. This then must the apostles 
themselves thoroughly learn before receiving from above the fulness 
of the Spirit. (ἴλδικος, unrighteous, is here contrasted with πιστός, 
faithful, because of the foregoing use of the word. All unfaithful- 
ness is also unrighteousness. ) 

Ver. 13.--The concluding words we have already met with at 
Matth. vi. 24, in the Sermon on the Mount. That their position 
here is an original one, and not merely that in which they occur in 
Matth., does not need to be pomted out. Hivery word of the verse 
fits here most closely into the whole parable, The servant (οἰκέτης) 
points back to the steward (οἰκονόμος). The one master is the 
rich man (ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος), the other is the possessor of the 
ἀληθινόν, true; the contrasted terms hate and love, as also receive 
(ἀναδέχεσθαι) and despise (καταφρονεῖν) refer to the application of the 
possessions against the one and in favour of the other master. The 
wavering inclinations of the Pharisees seem in this way to be wholly 
excluded, but the Lord means to exhort his disciples to give up all, 
and to be wholly for God. The verse completes the explanation 
given by Jesus of the foregoing parable, and leaves no doubt as to 
its connexion as one whole. . 

Ver. 14—Although the parable (according to ver. 1) was ad- 
dressed primarily to the disciples, yet was it not intended that the 
Pharisees should be excluded. (Hence the words ἤκουον ταῦτα πάντα 
καὶ ol Φαρισαῖοι.) Their covetousness was to be rebuked by this 
very parable of the wicked steward ; and in anger at this reproof 
they gave expression to their ill-will in mockery of Jesus, not only 
in looks but perhaps also in words, (‘Exuvxrnpigerv, the compound, 
occurs also at Luke xxiii, 35. The simple verb is found only at 
Gal. vi. 7. In the LXX. it stands as = 335, to scoff, mock, turn up 
the nose.) This incident leads the Saviour to address his discourse 
again directly to the Pharisees (εἶπεν αὐτοῖς), and in another para~ 
ble once more to hold before them the consequences of their avarice 
(φιλαργυρία.) We thus again find Luke very exact here in setting 
before us the turns of the dialogue, and might at once infer from 
this, that here also (vers. 15-18), we should not fail to find a close 
connexion. True, the verses which follow are very obscure, and it 
is possible that Luke has communicated them to us somewhat ab- 
breviated. Perhaps, however, the Saviour spoke with intentional 
obscurity, since he could hardly hope to win over the Pharisees to 


Lone ΧΥ͂Ι. 15-18. 73 


his side, and hence not to make them so deeply responsible, may 
have chosen to touch but incidentally upon the relation in which 
the Old Testament economy (to which the Pharisees belonged ex- 
ternally, although they had no sympathy with its spirit) stood to 
that New Testament economy which was now unfolding itself be- 
fore them. 

Ver, 15.—The very first verse of this dialogue is obscure in its 
connexion, The Saviour blames the Pharisees for their hypocrisy; they 
set themselves forth in the view of men as δίκαιοι, righteous (δικαιοῦν 
éavrov—pr7sn used here, in the legal sense, to represent one’s self as 
a strict observer of the law), while in the view of God, who looks, 
not like men, on the external, but the spiritual (καρδία ---- 55), they 
are not so. In the concluding words the ὑψηλόν, lofty, highly esteemed, 
is mentioned as the ground of this displeasure on the part of God : 
(Βδέλυγμα from βδέω, to stink, the strongest expression for that which 
is displeasing to God ; it stands for naz‘n, and is used especially of 
idols, Ὕψηλόν also implies a reference to that which is idolatrous, 
which robs God of his glory, and gives it to self.) In its connexion 
with what precedes the discourse seems to relate to covetousness 
or attachment to earthly possessions, but neither to hypocrisy nor to 
pride. So even in ver. 15, there seems no connecting link between 
the first and second ideas—between hypocrisy and pride. The ex- 
planation of this difficulty lies in the more profound conception of 
avarice (φιλαργυρία) as the root of all evil (1 Tim. vi. 10. Avarice, 
conceived generally as devotion to the perishable involves every evil. 
Especially and primarily in the case of the Pharisees, who bore an out- 
ward spiritual character, and therefore seemed to cherish love for God, 
the Eternal, it involved hypocrisy. Over their love of gold they could 
east the garb of careful zeal for God, ὦ. 6.,ὄ for the temple. Yet 
with hypocrisy, was again necessarily connected a selfish pride, as 
it was their semblance of righteousness on which they founded their 
claims. Although, therefore, the expression τὸ ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὑψηλόν, 
that which is exalted among men, is somewhat general, and denotes 
any form which pride may assume, yet it points primarily to that 
most dangerous manifestation of it, Pharisaic selfishness, as exhibited 
in a fictitious serving of God, which, in his view, is idolatry. Hence 
ὑψηλόν is to be regarded as contrasted with ταπεινόν : as the latter 
alone pleases Ged, so the former offends Him (Luke xiv. 11). 

Ver. 16-18.—The connexion of the following verses is still more 
difficult. Matthew, in the Sermon on the Mount (v. 18, 82), gives 
verses 17, 18, in a very different connexion. At Matth. xi. 12, how- 
ever, there occurs something like ver. 16, but also peculiarly con- 
nected. Now, I cannot by any means bring myself to believe that 
these three verses are reminiscences which the Evangelist was led to 
write down, merely because one word led him to another. Hitherto 


74 Luxe XVI. 16-18. 


. 


we have found the closest connexion ; [?] and we cannot see why 
it should be so interrupted, since the strictest connexion, reappears 
in what immediately follows. On the other side, however, it is also 
improbable that Matthew would have taken these three sentences 
out of this discourse, and interwoven them into a train of ideas so 
entirely different as that in which his gospel places them. Rather 
I believe that the expressions (uttered with intentional obscurity, 
and perhaps abridged by the narrator) are here indeed in their 
original position, but equally so in Matthew. They are of such a 
kind that they may easily have been repeated. As to the exposition 
of this difficult passage, I cannot in the first instance, agree with 
Paulus and Schleiermacher, that the expression ‘“ highly esteemed 
among men,” refers to Herod Antipas, and the allusion to marriage 
(ver. 18) points to his connexion with his brother’s wife, which the 
venal Pharisees had allowed. Yor it is difficult to conceive that a 
fact so special should be referred to in this connexion, which neither 
before nor after contains the slightest allusion to it. Besides, there 
can hardly be an exposition more unfit than that which refers 
ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὑψηλόν to Herod Antipas.* Mere earthly greatness 
cannot possibly as such be an abomination in the view of God ; the 
king may be conceived as ταπεινός, humble, and the beggar, ὑψηλός, 
lofty; the idea is correct only when taken spiritually. Still further, 
ver. 18 does not accord with history, for Herod’s brother had not 
given to his wife her bill of divorce, but Herod had seduced her 
from him. The clause, therefore, ὁ ἀπολύων x. τ. λ., he that divorces, 
&c., by no means agrees with the circumstances supposed to be re- 
ferred to. Scarcely any other explanation of the passage (ver. 18) 
can suggest itself, except the following figurative one.t Verses 16 
and 17 set, in the first instance, the Old Testament economy (νόμος 
kat προφῆται) in its temporary and restricted duration (in which 
respect, aS an institute preparatory to the New Testament, it ter- 
minates with John the Baptist), over against its everlasting character 
_ Gn which respect it is in a spiritual sense completed, and still sub- 
sists in the New Testament).t The reference to it under the former 
of these aspects announces to the Pharisees the approaching 
overthrow of that visible theocratic kingdom, for the support of 
which they wrought, and the issuing forth of a new and higher 
order of things, into which were pressing all susceptible and tender 
souls, especially the Publicans, whom the Pharisees despised. The 

* The ἐν ἀνθρώποις is not to be taken as meaning ἔν μέσῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, but it is 


equivalent to ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων (see immediately before), In the same way we find 
at 1 Tim. iv. 15, φανερὸν εἷναι ἐν πᾶσι. 

+ Thisis very far-fetched. We escape the necessity, by assuming in this chapter simply 
a collection of individual maxims and utterances of the Saviour, internally indeed, but 
not strictly logically connected.—[E. 

+ Compare as to this the remarks on Matth. v. 17. 


Luxe XVI. 16-18. 75 


second aspect of it, which brings out into view the everlasting truth 
wrapt up in the law, sets before them, on the one hand, the fact 
that they themselves as well as the Publicans, might find entrance 
into this new kingdom, whose future approach the Old Testament 
had already foretold ; and calls their attention, on the other, to the 
circumstance that this same economy on which, as on a sure foun- 
dation, they were resting, pronounced on them a sentence of con- 
demnation, inasmuch as the laws of recompense, on which it was 
grounded (and which are of force also for the coming world), are 
eternal laws of God. (This is referred to in the following parable, 
at verses 29, 31, in which Moses and the prophets are described as a 
full and satisfying divine revelation, which leaves without excuse the 
man who does not make use of the law, or who arbitrarily casts off 
its authority.) The relation then in which men stand to the Divine 
law, which is binding on them, is viewed as a marriage ; and our 
Lord denies that there ought ever to be a wilful breaking up of such 
bonds. The man who does this, and from his own choice enters 
into another connexion, is guilty of spiritual adultery. Under this 
comparison our Lord sets forth at once the unfaithfulness of the 
Pharisees towards God, inasmuch as they loved mammon more than 
him; and also their inability to enter into the new element of 
gospel life, as they vainly imagined they could, being persuaded that 
they were certainly members of the kingdom of God ; since such a 
transition required a deliverance from the law, which in their case 
did not exist. This figurative conception of the passage is assuredly 
less objectionable on the ground of its wnxcommonness (inasmuch as 
Paul at Rom. vii. 1, seq., describes under the same image the rela- 
tion in which the soul stands to the law) than of the form in which 
the figure is here applied. This certainly furnishes ground of 
hesitation, For in that passage of Paul the law is viewed as the 
husband and the soul as the wife ; here, however, the figure is re- 
versed: the law would be the wife, and the man who is connected 
with it, would be the husband. And yet we may perhaps perceive 
why this mode of conceiving the figure is here adopted. For the 
thing here spoken of was not so much the position of the soul wnder 
the law, of which the Apostle speaks, and hence exhibits the law 
as bearing authority, (as the husband), as the relation of the Phar- 
isees to the whole theocratic institutions of the Old Testameat. In 
these the Pharisees were the ruling power (the Pharisees being taken 
for the whole dominant priestly party), and hence the turn here 
given to the figure was adjusted to this mode of conceiving the 
relation, Adultery (μοιχεύειν), used to denote spiritual unfaithful- 
ness to God, is founded ona figure of speech so common that it 
needed no special mention, The idea that he who leaves his true 
wife and joins himself to another, breaks his marriage vow, stands 


76 Luxe XVI. 18, 19. 


here parallel with the serving of two masters (ver. 13.) Conduct 
of this kind is incompatible with that oneness of the whole course 
of lite which the true service of God demands. He who thus 
attempts to hold with both sides, necessarily falls under the sentence 
of the law, which in this respect has its everlasting retribution, 
and still exhibits its power in the future world (ver, 29, 31). Another 
objection, however, to the figurative exposition of this passage lies 
in this, that while it gives meaning and force to the first half of the 
verse, πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὑτοῦ καὶ γαμῶν ἑτέραν μοιχεύει, he 
that divorces, ὅσο., the second half ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν 
μοιχεύει, he that marrieth her, &c., seems superfluous. But this 
second half also acquires relevancy, if we contemplate the Pharisees in 
their twofold false position. Jor their sin consisted not merely in 
their failing to hold the law in its abiding character and significancy 
(ver. 17), inasmuch as they loved money and goods more than God, 
but also in this, that the Old Testament economy in its perishable 
features, and thus their visible theocracy which was to them a source 
of wealth,,they wished still to maintain when the time of its disso- 
lution was at hand. That which God had loosed they wished still 
to regard as maintaining its binding power ; that which God had 
bound they wilfully unloosed; and thus they were guilty of a 
double spiritual adultery. Their right course would have been to 
let themselves be set free by the Spirit of God from the ancient 
covenant, and then, with upright purpose, enter into the new Gos- 
pel covenant, in which are still preserved the permanent features 
of the old economy. According to this view, the two halves of ver. 
18 correspond closely with the two preceding verses, and the whole 
idea is rendered complete. The following parable also thus acquires 
a close reference to what precedes in the parts which affirm that 
eternal validity of the law (ver. 29, 31), which the Pharisees over- 
looked. (As to the details of the verses, compare the remarks on 
the parallel passages at Matth. xi. 12, v. 18, 32.) 

Ver. 19.—That the following parable contains reference to the 
preceding one of the unjust steward is self-evident.* For, as in the 
first an example was set before us shewing how man must employ 
earthly possessions in the service of God, so is there here given the 
example of a rich man who applies his possessions merely to his own 
enjoyment. Intentionally he is represented not as vicious (πονηρός), 
he is simply worldly-minded. In Lazarus, on the other hand, there 

* De Wette’s view of this parable is altogether perverted and wholly misleading. He 
thinks that the poor and the rich are, apart from all moral desert, set over against each 
other, and that it is maintained that only the poor as such would be saved, while the 
rich as such would be condemned. How can this gross error of the Ebionites be im- 
puted to the Holy Scriptures, and especially to Luke, who belonged to the Gentile 


Christians? Von Meyer’s exposition of this parable is heart-stirring as given in the 
Blatt. ἢ héh. Wabrh., vol. vi. page 88, seqq. 


Luxe XVI. 19. 17 


is brought before us a person of whom the rich man might have 
made use for the promotion of his heavenly interests (Luke xvi. 9), 
Here also then is beneficence, warm-hearted love for the brethren 
again enjoined. Another point referred to in the parable, though 
less clearly brought out, is of great importance as a connecting link 
with the preceding. In the conversation between the rich man and 
Abraham, it is distinctly stated that the former, as being an Israel- 
ite (for which reason he calls Abraham his father, ver. 24, 27), con- 
siders the latter as his natural helper and protector. The parable is 
designed to set forth the vanity of this confidence in their natural 
descent, which all the Pharisees cherished. For Abraham refers 
him to Moses and the prophets, (ver. 16, 17), and condemns him 
through these. The jus talionis—law of retribution—on which rests 
the whole ancient economy, is brought forward by Abraham (ver, 25) 
to convince him of the justice of his sufferings. Moses, on whom 
the Pharisees rested their hopes, is thus brought forward to pro- 
nounce their condemnation. (The parable is consequently a com- 
mentary on John v, 45-47.) The parable, however, does not con- 
clude at this point ; the rich man still, though abandoning himself 
to his own fate, appeals from righteousness to mercy, and asks that 
Lazarus should be sent to his brethren. Abraham, however, leaves 
them also to Moses and the prophets. It is here to be remarked, 
that what Abraham refuses, God in Christ’ has pérformed, so that 
in this parable we have at once a representation of the essential na- 
ture of the law, and also an intimation that something was required 
which should go beyond it. In this respect we may see in Lazarus, - 
whose resurrection the rich man longs for, a type of Christ, in whose 
resurrection his prayer was realized. That finally any special fact 
should have served as the foundation for this parable is scarcely 
probable; at least it is unnecessary to assume this, for there is no- 
thing peculiar in its outward aspect—poor men before the doors of 
rich men may be found everywhere. Hence also the name Λάζαρος 
is probably symbolical = ΠΣ x, Eleazar, God-help, who finds help 
only in God. As the rich man then represents worldly feeling (not 
gross vice, for this man, who lived for pleasure, was obviously capa- 
ble (ver. 27) of nobler emotions), so is Lazarus the type of pious 
men who are divested of all temporal possessions. Hence, in so far 
as Christ belonged to that number, or rather represented in its per- 
fection this complete poverty, in so far is the parable applicable to 
himself. But the relation of Lazarus to Abraham, maintained in 
the parable, allows only this general application to Christ, unless 
we are inclined to view Abraham as symbolically representing God 
the Father. While, therefore, in the first parable, a steward is ex- 
hibited in connexion with the world and with those who are to re- 
ceive him into everlasting habitations, the world, on the other hand, 


78 Luxe XVI. 20, 21. 


appears her¢ in connexion with the needy pious themselves, in such 
a way, however, as to show what was the right application of the 
doctrine given in the preceding parable. It is thus clear how much 
ticher the sense of the narrative becomes when regarded as a 
parable, than as history. Asa parable, it expresses the universal 
relation of the pleasure-seeking world to the pious who have not 
where to lay their heads. (The account of the rich man contains 
merely the features of a pleasure-seeking worldling—EvdidvoKkw oc- 
curs only at Luke viii. 21----Βύσσος = γ55, with which %¥ and 72 are 
used as synonymous. It means fine cotton, Iopiea, like Ἴ55-Ὲ, 
denotes the colour, and that which is dyed with it.) 

Ver. 20, 21,—In contrast with the rich man, Lazarus is described 
as wanting the most common necessaries—he had not where to lay 
his head. (Πυλών, the range of pillars enclosing the court of the 
palace through which the door opened into it. On ψιχία, comp. 
Matth. xv. 29. Shut out from human society, he laid claim, along 
with the lower animals, merely to the crumbs that remained.) Nay, 
. like Job, he was afflicted with disease, and covered with ulcers (ἕλκη). 
But no man attended to him or bound up his wounds—the dogs 
licked them. (’A7odeiyw is found only in this passage. It does not 
appear that the expression can refer to the sympathy of the dogs, of 
which there is no indication in the context. The words denote 
rather the entire abandonment of him on the part of man: his 
wounds stand open and instead of human help, the dogs surround 
him. Their licking the wounds may denote their eagerness and 
greediness rather than their sympathy. Dogs bear in the Old and 
New Testament a character exclusively evil ; they never appear as 
the symbols of fidelity or even of kindliness.) That Lazarus repre- 
sents at the same time a spiritual character of true piety and godly 
fear, is not expressly stated, but the connexion necessarily leads us 
to infer it. The parable also incidentally contradicts that Jewish 
prejudice, which the Pharisees especially cherished (and which the 
book of Job had formerly been written to refute), that the sufferings 
of individuals are the consequence and punishment of their own in- 
dividual sins, and consequently that a sufferer can never represent 
one that fears God. All sufferings, even those of the pious, are 
certainly an evidence of the sin of the whole race. The saint does 
not withdraw himself from the consequences of this general sinful- 
ness, but accepts them with patience and childlike resignation, in 
that form in which God, for the perfecting of the individual and of 
the whole community, sees it right to lay them on him. Suffering 
thus appears in the hand of God as an advantage, a means of moral 
perfection ; and he whose efforts are directed to avoiding all suffering 
here below, gives himself up wholly to self-seeking, hardens his 
heart against the wretched, whose sufferings might have awakened 


4 


Luxe XVI 22-26. 79 


him to sympathy, and so deprives himself of the blessedness which 
consists in love. 

Ver, 22, 23.—Short, but in the highest degrees significant, is the 
delineation of the final issues in which these opposite courses in life 
terminate. Death, that severs all earthly ties, overtook both, and 
then was disclosed their essential characters. Lazarus, to whom no 
mortals had ministered, was born upwards by heavenly powers ;— 
to the rich man they gave the last outward pomp of funeral obse- 
quies, and deposited him in his grave. Thus, according to the prin- 
ciple of retribution (ver. 25), their state appeared directly reversed, 
and with the measure the rich man had meted, it was measured to 
him again. (Matth. vii, 2.) As he had failed to comfort Lazarus, 
there was none to comfort him in the hour of his sufferings. (Βάτ- 
tetv is also, by classic writers, construed with the genitive, but only 
in an intransitive sense. Here it is construed with ὕδατος in a trans- 
itive sense.) 

Ver. 24-26.—This exhibition of the entirely reversed relation of 
the two men, forms the subject of the following dialogue: the rich 
man who upon earth lived in daily: sumptuousness and splendour, 
pleads now for an act of kindness to himself, which even Lazarus in 
his poverty had not needed to ask. (Καταψύχειν, to refresh, to cool, 
is not found elsewhere in the New Testament.) But, even this, ac- 
cording to the inexorable law of retribution (eye for eye and tooth 
for tooth) is refused him ; he has received his reward (Matth. vi. 2). 
His earthly labours had brought him a rich earthly reward. But 
with the whole foundation of his labours, the reward itself sank 
down and perished. Besides this law of retaliation, there is also 
here brought to his mind the existing separation of the elements of 
good and evil which takes place at death. The κρίσις, separation, 
judgment, puts an end to the mixture of good and evil which exists 
in this present world, and like gathers itself to like, and finds pain 
or pleasure in the very presence of its kindredelement, (Χάσμα, from 
χαίνω, to gape, to stand open, means gulf, abyss: it is found in the 
New Testament only in this passage. "Eorjocxrat, is fixed, implies 
a reference to the fixed and unchangeable nature of this appoint- 
ment. In the same way Hesiod calls the space ἔνθα θεοὶ Τιτῆνες ὑπὸ 
ζόφῳ ἠερόεντι κεκρύφαται, in his Theogony, v. 740, a χάσμα μέγα.) 
Here, however, arises the difficult question, how in that portion of 
the parable which extends beyond this present life, the figurative 
and the real stand connected with each other, a question all the 
more uncertain, as purely didactic passages respecting the state of 
souls between death and the resurrection are not to be found in 
Seripture. Holding to the general principle, that the most careful 
use is to be made of every feature in a parable, it appears to me 
that the following are the true ideas to be deduced from the figur- 


80 | Luge XVI. 24-26. 


ative representation here given: Ist, That departed souls are assem- 
bled together in one definite place. 2d, That they are separated 
from each other according to their fundamental characters, into 
good and evil, but that they are mutually conscious of each other’s 
state. 3d, That after death a transition from the good to the evil, 
or the reverse, is impossible. On the other hand we are to view, as 
a parabolic representation, the dialogue which takes place, the por- 
trayal of the suffering, and of the wished-for relief. The former, 
the dialogue, viz., is to be regarded as representing the living recip- 
rocal action of our essential nature, the longing after deliverance on 
the one side, and the voice of the law on the other: the latter, as 
a sensible representation of analogous psychical experiences.** 
Rightly to understand, however, the whole delineation, we must 
above all keep clearly in view that it is not everlasting salvation or 
condemnation which is here described, but the middle state of de- 
parted souls between death and the resurrection. The Bible knows 
not either the expression immortality of the soul (God is ὁ μόνος 
ἔχων ἀθανασίαν, 1 Tim. vi. 16), or the modern doctrine of immortality. 
It is the doctrine of the resurrection (ἀνάστασις) which gives its pe- 
culiar colouring to the description of the state after death.t Down 
to the resurrection, the soul, stripped of its organ, is in an interme- 
diate state, in which the experience of pain or of joy is regulated 
according to the moral condition of each individual, but that state 
is still one merely of transition, and not till the resurrection, and 


* Compare the treatise (well worth perusal) by Beckers, “Communications from the 
most remarkable writings of past centuries, as to the state of the soul after death.” 
Augsburg, 1835. ; 

+ The overwhelming importance of the New Testament doctrine of the resurrection, 
and the new aspects under which it revealed a future life, may well have coloured the 
scriptural representations of the future existence of the soul, and thrown into the back 
ground the abstract truth of the soul’s immortality. Yet the Scripture proofs that the 
soul has a natural existence independently of the body, if not very numerous, are per- 
fectly decisive. ‘ Fear not them that kill the body, but cannot kill the soul.” “ While 
at home in the body we are absent from the Lord; we are willing rather to be absent 
from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” Again the parable before us, according 
to Olshausen himself, is express and decisive in its testimony. It represents the essen- 
tial man, the soul, as unaffected by the dissolution of the body, and entering immediately 
into a state of happiness or misery. It matters not then that the Bible does not know 
the phrase “‘ immortality of the soul,” when it so manifestly knows the thing ; and it is 
difficult to see what Olshausen means by the declaration that the Bible knows nothing 
of the modern doctrine of immortality. The modern advocates of immortality do not by 
any means question, that in fact, under the Divine arrangement, the soul in its immortality 
will be associated with the body; they affirm no more than lies on the face of Scripture, 
that the soul is not dependent for its existence on the body; or rather, for this is the 
real issue, that man has a spiritual nature, essentially different from his material. The 
declaration that God alone hath immortality, seems to imply simply, that God, unlike all 
created existences within our knowledge, is not subject to death. Man is not ἀθάνατος, 
deathless ; he passes to immortality only through death (θάνατος). God is not only im- 
mortal (immortalis), but deathless (ἀθάν aroc),—[K. 


Luxe XVI. 24-26. 81 


the κρίσις ἐσχάτη, does the final decision take effect. The dwelling 
place of souls when unclothed from the body is termed in the lan- 
guage of Scripture ὥδης" — dixv, and with special reference to the 
sinful individuals who-are found in this place, ἄβυσσος, yéevva, φυ-- 
λακή, abyss, Gehenna or Hell, prison (Matth. xviii. 84 ; 1 Peter in, 
18) ; while with reference to the pious it is styled κόλπος ᾿Αβραάμ,7 
παράδεισος, bosom of Abraham, paradise. (Luke xxiii. 43.) From 
this παράδεισος, we must be careful to distinguish the upper Para- 
dise, as the Rabbins term it, which is spoken of at 2 Cor. xii. 4 
(Compare Hisenmenger’s Htnd. Judenth., vol. 2, p. 296, f 318). 
Although separated from each other (ver. 25), yet all departed souls, 
while awaiting the resurrection, are assembled together in this place, 
only in a different state of felt joy or suffering according as they 
have devoted themselves to good or evil, and in different gradations 
of feeling, according to the degree of their spiritual development. 
Even in the case of the pious, however, their stay in Sheol takes the 
form of longing desire, inasmuch as union with the glorified body, is 
a condition necessary to their perfection.{ Hence are explained 
those expressions of the Old Testament, as to the residence in Sheol, 
the misunderstanding of which has led to the mistake that the Old 
Testament knows nothing of the soul’s existence after death. It 
only brings this forward less frequently, because of the low grade of 
culture among the people, and, indeed, it could not, so long as the 
Saviour had not yet appeared, lead forward to living with the Lord 
in the heavenly world. Yor, faith in the Saviour leads the regener- 
ate at once into his heavenly fellowship (John ii. 17 ; v. 24; vi. 40, 
47; xi. 25, 26; xii. 25; xiv. 2) in such a way, that the imperfec- 
tion of their state in Sheol appears in the New Testament as over- 
come. Those passages of Scripture (for example Matth. xii, 32; 1 
Pet. iii. 18 ; iv. 6) whose contents the church, in her doctrine as to 
the descensus Christi ad inferos, found occasion to embody in the 
very heart of her doctrinal system, speak of a return from the φυλακή, 
prison (—Sheol, Hades), and of the possibility therein implied of 
sin being forgiven after death. This representation can be con- 
strued only on the supposition of an intermediate state lasting till 

* As to the distinction between Hades and Tartarus among the Greeks, see Plato’s 
Republic (Edit. Steph. p. 614, seqq), In the narrative there given of the Armenian, 
there is expressed the idea of the necessity that some one should return from the dead in 
order to assure the living of the reality of the state after death. 

+ The expression κόλπος ’AGpaau is found only in this passage. It has a parallel in 
John i. 18, where the Son is described as 6 ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός. The expres- 
sion (seil., κολπ. Ap.) isnot drawn from the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacop (Matth. 
viii. 11), for this is not to be conceived as taking place in the joyful abode of Hades, but 
in the kingdom of God. It is better to take the expression as denoting figuratively the 
most intimate immediate union and fellowship. 


¢ “Bodiliness (Letblichkeit) is the end of the work of God,” says a Christian thinker ; 
“without bodiliness there is no blessedness,” exclaims another. 


Vot., 1.—6 


82 Donn XVI, 24-26. 


the resurrection, after which there follows the last judgment (μρίσις ἐσ- 
χάτη), which presupposes an antecedent judgment. By this last judg- 
ment evil men are wholly given over to condemnation, which is locally 
described by the terms Gehenna, or Abyss in a more restricted sense 
(λίμνη τοῦ πυρός, Rev. xx. 14, 15). In our parable, therefore, there 
is no possible reference to the everlasting condemnation of the rich 
man, inasmuch as the germ of love,‘and of faith in love, is clearly 
expressed in his words, and obviously the whole picture turns on a 
state of things antecedent to the resurrection, and the revelation 
of the Risen One. Abraham thus appears merely as an inhabitant 
of Paradise as it exists in Hades, and as the representative of the 
law. According to it the rich man found himself in pain, but com- 
passionate love might take pity on him, for its responding notes 
were not wanting in his heart. 

The distinction here drawn between Sheol and Gehenna* is 
essential to the understanding of many obscure passages. The an- 
cient church, which firmly maintained the doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion of the body, acknowledged this distinction without qualifica- 
tion. It lies also at the foundation of the Rabbinical writings, 
(comp. Hisenmenger’s Ent. Jud. vol. 2, sec 5,6). And even in the 
Roman and Grecian mythology there are found representations 
vlosely allied to the Hades of the Old Testament (comp, Hesiod in 
the Theogony, v. 713, seqq. and Virgil in the Atneid, vi. ver. 540, 
seqq.) The τι interpreters, who are less ἀπε by τ 
matic views (see Paulus on the passage), willingly recognize in the 
New Testament, also this mode of conception, drawing, it is true, 
from this the false inference that the Saviour and his apostles 
accommodated themselves to, or were entangled by, Jewish opinions. 
If, however, without suffering ourselves to be influenced by philo- 
sophic or dogmatic opinions, we closely compare the doctrine of the 
New Testament as to the relation of the sow and the spirit, of the 
resurrection and the judgment, not only will the explanation which 
we have given of the soul’s condition after death harmonize the vari- 
ous modes of expression found in Scripture, but will solve many an 
enigma which with any explanation remains unintelligible, Hspe- 
cially does it explain the difference of the state into which souls 
depart at death, and more particularly in the case of those whose 
minds were undeveloped, and who had not come toa decision in 
favour either of good or evil, in their relation to blessedness or 
misery,} better than is allowed by the common view. The biblical 

* Compare John Frederick Von Meyer’s treatise on Hades. pre 1810), and Blatt. 
f. hoh. Wahrh. part 6, p, 222, seqq. 

+ This doctrine as to an intermediate state of the soul after death must not be con- 
founded with the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. According to Roman Catholic 


principles, Purgatory refers only to believers who have not yet reached perfect holiness. 
Of such a purifying fire for the perfecting of believers, Scripture knows absolutely nothing. 


Luke XVI. 27-81. 83 


doctrine of an intermediate state, in which departed souls remain 
till the resurrection enables us to see united in their destiny the ex- 
pressions of the law’s severity with the tenderness of forgiving love. 

Ver. 27-31.—In the concluding verses of this remarkable parable, 
our Lord makes the rich man present a petition in behalf of his 
brethren. In this prayer there is clearly expressed a loving remem- 
brance of his brethren, as well as faith in the compassionate love of 
God: both of which shew that in his soul there still remained 
germs which rendered him capable of entering into the kingdom of 
love. He merely had not cherished and developed it as he ought 
to have done, and in the hour of his need became for the first time 
conscious of the truth. Upon this prayer being presented, Abra- 
ham, who here appears as the representative of the law,* sets be- 
fore him the circumstance that they (the brethren) were in posses- 
sion of the law, and that they might follow it. That which Abra- 
ham left unfulfilled, Divine mercy, through Christ, carried into 
effect ; He returned from the dead that he might win men and 
bring them to God. The prayer of this individual, therefore, may 
be viewed as the general voice of longing desire which met with its 
fulfilment in the resurrection of Christ. In reference to the Phari- 
sees, the words taken in this way bear the following meaning : 
“Thus shall ye also long after that which ye are now refusing.” 
The passage is closely related to Luke xii, 35; Matth. xxi. 39, 
where the Pharisees are also exhibited as overcome by the Saviour. 
Certainly, however, Luke xvi. 31, εἰ Μωσέως καὶ τῶν πρωφητῶν οὐκ 
ἀκούουσιν, οὐδὲ ἐάν τις ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ, πεισθήσονται, If they hear not 
Moses and the prophets, etc., involves also a prophecy that many 
would refuse to believe in this miracle of love implied in his resur- 
rection. Thus nothing could be more fitted to arrest the Pharisees 
than this parable. A son of Abraham, who knew Moses and the 
prophets, comes after death, not to the gathering place of the 
fathers, but to the place of woe, where longings after aid manifest 
themselves in him. The Pharisees must have seen in all thisa pic- 
ture of their own doom. The despised Lazarus, on the other hand 
(the representative of publicans and sinners), whose sighs the rich 
man had never listened to, reaches the place of joy, and his assist- 
ance is begged by the sufferer. In the same way shall ye—such 
is, as it were, the language of the parable—also seek help from those 


(See on 1 Cor. iii. 13.) In the middle state of Hades are found only those who had pre- 
viously been Christians and wnbelievers. Inasmuch as many are, from no fault of their 
own, destitute of faith, divine grace there opens up to them the possibility of their attain- 
ing to it. 

* As such a representative, Abraham might be described as speaking of Moses and 
the prophets who lived after him. As a dweller in Paradise, into whose bosom all tho 
saints of the Old Testament were gathered, Abraham might well speak of thase in whom 
the Old Testament economy was most fully set forth. 


84 Luxe XVII. 1-4. 


whom here ye despise ; but even according to Moses, on whom your 
dependence is placed (John v. 45, seqq.), ye shall be refused. No- 
‘thing can pity or aid you but grace, which repays evil, not with 
evil, but with good. 


§ 18. ConcLusion or THE ῬΑΒΑΒΟΙΙΟ DiscouRsEs. 
(Luke xvii. 1-10.) 


Ver. 1, 2.—The commencement of this section points obviously 
back to xvi. 1, 14, and this at once makes it probable that a con- 
nexion will not be wanting between what goes before and what fol- 
lows. The opening sentences form most clearly a sequel to the 
reproof which had been addressed to the Pharisees, It is they who 
are represented as giving offence, and preventing many from entering 
into the kingdom of God—against them is the woe denounced, and the 
disciples are warned against them. The words are most appropriate 
as a conclusion of the discourse, inasmuch as our Lord, seeing that 
his earnest admonitions remained without effect, now gave up all 
efforts in their behalf, and abandoned them to their own perverted 
feelings. At Matth. xvii. 6, 7, the same ideas occur on the occa- 
sion of Christ’s placing a child in the midst of his disciples, only 
the order of the two verses is inverted. The contents, however, of 
both verses are such that we can easily suppose them to admit of 
more than one application. (As to the relation in which the verses 
stand to the connexion in Matthew, see the passage itself) As 
respects the ideas expressed in the first verse (the detailed consider- 
ation of which was not given in Matthew), there is indicated in an 
interesting way the relation subsisting between that necessity which 
regulates the progress of humanity as a whole, and the freedom 
possessed by individuals. For, the ground of the occurrence of 
offences (σκάνδαλα) is to be sought, partly in the sin which exists, 
and partly in the necessity for advancing the church, which must, 
through this very opposition, be carried forward to perfection. 
Notwithstanding, however, the necessity for these offences on the 
one hand, yet this does not excuse the offender, inasmuch as evil 
ean take effect in an individual only through the consent of his own 
will. ‘The wondrous controlling providence of God which can bring 
good out of evil, is thus the only thing which can make the insinu- 
ation of that evil intelligible as a means of progress, while it takes 
place without his active co-operation (‘Avexdext6v = ἀδύνατον, comp, 
Matth. xviii. 7.) 

Ver. 8, 4—From the malicious temptation, however (of the 
Pharisees), our Lord distinguishes the sins of brethren (the Publi- 
cans), arising from their weakness. As the former demands severe 


Luxe XVII. 5, 6. 85 


punishment, the latter calls for gentle reproof and continued 
forgiveness. While we must separate from the former that we may 
not ourselves receive damage (προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς), the latter must be 
kindly borne with. Kindred sentiments are found at Matth. xviii. 
15, 22 (where see the exposition), but these words also are of such 
a nature that there is nothing improbable in their frequent repeti- 
tion. At both passages they may stand in their right connexion. 

Ver. 5.—The connexion of what follows with the preceding con- 
text seems more obscure. Schleiermacher (p. 213) thinks the 
formula “the apostles said to the Lord” (εἶπον οἱ ἀπόστολοι τῷ κυρίῳ) 
suspicious, as it does not occur elsewhere. But we can point out 
distinct grounds for its being chosen here. The more general term 
(μαθηταί, ver. 1) was here to give place to the more special, and the 
apostles were to be separated from the general mass of the disciples; 
consequently they must be expressly named. As to the term ὁ κύριος, 
the Lord, as a special name for the Saviour, Luke, of all the 
Evangelists, most frequently employs it (see on Matth. xvii. 4.) 
The only difficulty is the πρόσθες ἡμῖν πίστιν, increase our faith, with 
which is connected (ver. 6) a representation of the power of faith. 
The Saviour’s discourse is at all events abbreviated, but this being 
assumed, the train of thought may perhaps be pointed out. The 
foregoing admonitions to the apostles to set themselves right in 
regard to the Pharisees and their weak brethren, naturally implied 
a call on them to walk worthily of their high vocation. From the 
feeling of difficulty then, there arose an earnest desire that they 
might bear within themselves in the fullest measure the principle of 
the Divine life, whose possession was their only security for being 
able to fulfil those admonitions, and hence arose the prayer “ in- 
crease our faith.” 

Ver. 6.—Our Lord acknowledges the correctness and truth of 
this desire, in that he sets forth the actings of faith, as that by 
which even the impossible is rendered possible. This passage also 
has its analogies at Matth. xvi. 20, and the frequent occurrence of 
these parallel passages from Matthew, makes the belief that we 
have here a union of elements of different discourses, such as 
is found in the Sermon on the Mount, easily intelligible. But even 
granting this, there must be here a species of connexion, for we 
cannot admit in any careful writer an incoherent aggregate of pas- 
sages ; and the whole character of Luke is against such a supposi- 
tion, as clearly as that of Matthew is in favour of it. Especially in 
the report of this journey is there to be seen a remarkable example 
of the connected conversations (not discourses) of Jesus ; and hence 
I believe that, everywhere, the original course of the dialogue has 
been preserved, and the whole communicated in a form at most 
only abbreviated by Luke. The figure, moreover (compared with 


86 Lone “Vil. 1--10. 


Matth. xvii. 20), is somewhat modified. The act of planting in the 
heaving sea, like the overturning of the mountain in that passage, is 
the emblem of that which is impossible for human power, and 
for the laws of earthly development. Again, therefore, faith is 
viewed as a susceptibility for a higher principle of life. (Συκάμινος 
== ppv, the well-known sycamore, which especially in Eygpt grows 
abundantly, and the wood of which was manufactured into mummy 
cases, comp. Gesenius in his Lex. sub. voc.) " 

Ver. 7-10.—After this recommendation of faith, which naturally 
includes the advice that they should earnestly care and strive for its 
advancement, there follows a parabolic representation of the relation 
of the disciples to their Lord, which obviously grows out of the 
context in the following way. The prayer for faith indicates a certain 
mournful sense of the difficulty of the struggle awaiting them, and 
a longing after speedy rest and reward, forming the prevailing sen- 
timent in the minds of the apostles, In reference to this, Jesus 
reminds them of the relation which they sustain; it is that of 
servants (δοῦλοι) to the master (κύριος), and the business of a 
servant is to labour for the objects of his master, and in obedience 
to his will. This their labour, however, yields no merit; it is merely 
duty. True, it may seem that this view contradicts that given 
by Luke xii. 37, where it is said that our Lord will seat the faithful 
servants at table, and will himself serve them. The difference be- 
tween these representations, however, is to be explained by the 
different points of view from which the Saviour speaks. Previously 
he spoke of the rewards of grace which blesses us more than we can 
ask or think. Here he brings to view the strictly legal aspects of 
the case, in order to call the attention of the disciples to their moral 
impurity. The lowly Son of Man, therefore, here appears as the 
ruler whom all must serve, and the parable brings home to the 
apostles, and through them to all the members of the church, the 
fact that man in the service of God can acquire no merit ; that his 
highest faithfulness is nothing but duty, and that, hence, his only 
ground of confidence is grace. (᾿ Ἀροτριᾷν, ploughing, and ποιμαίνειν, 
tending sheep, figurative expressions for those spiritual labours to 
which the apostles were called.) The Saviour intentionally makes 
choice of the relations of ordinary life, in which the servant after 
labouring must still wait upon his master. The μὴ χάριν ἔχειν, feel- 
ing no gratitude, is also intended accurately to characterize the 
servile relation. The closing sentiment assumes the form of a 
proverb, yet it is manifestly the living utterance of the soul. ᾿Αχρεῖος 
occurs at Matth. xxv. 30 in a positive sense, denoting culpable, use- 
less. Here it is rather used negatively as applicable to him who 
performs no (special) ypeta, service, but only does what is required of 
him, and can receive a reward therefore only through grace. It 


Luke XVII. 11-20. 81 


involves so far the idea of the humble (ταπεινός), which, in Scripture 
usage, implies the consciousness of our own want of merit in rela- 
tion to the Divine Being. 


§ 19. Tae Heatine or TEN Lepers. 
(Luke xvii. 11-19.) 


While we have hitherto been able to trace a close thread of con- 
nexion, a new break obviously occurs at ver. 11. Mention is again 
made of the journey to Jerusalem (comp. ix. 51), with the incidental 
remark, that the Saviour travelled through the midst of Samaria 
and Galilee. In respect, finally, to the description or account of 
the place of the leper’s return, the expression in ver. 14, ἐγένετο ἐν 
τῷ ὑπάγειν αὐτοὺς ἐκαθαρίσθησαν, it came to pass as they went, they 
were cleansed, leaves no room for doubt that the cure was a sudden 
and remarkable one, that it caused instantly the return of the one 
leper, which is to be conceived of as happening in the village itself. 
(As to the narrative of the cure, see more detailed remarks on 
Matth. viii, 2.) In the gospel of Luke, this narrative has a special 
importance, for this reason, that the single grateful leper who forms 
the contrast to the nine ungrateful, was an ἀλλογενής, foreigner. 
This occasion thus set forth the fact, that the heathen (to whom 
the Samaritans were nearly allied) were not excluded by the Saviour 
from the kingdom of God, but were called in some respects before 
the Jews. 


§ 20. ΤῊΝ Comine or THE Krinepom or Gop. 


: (Luke xvii. 20-37.) 

The preceding narrative of a cure is again followed by a con- 
versation which extends down to xviii. 14, and in which we again 
trace a close connexion. It resembles the previous extended cons 
versation (from xiv. 25 onward) in this, that here also the Pharisees 
appear in contrast with the disciples (comp. xvii. 20, 22,37; xviii. 
1,9). This section sustains an important relation to Matth. xxiv., 
many of the passages of which are parallel to it. The much more 
close and marked connexion of the verses in the section before us,* 
as well as the relation of this discourse of Christ to that given in 

* See Schleiermacher on Luke, page 217, seq. Only I cannot agree with him in 
thinking that in Matth. xxiv. there is no connexion of any kind; it is only more loose, 


and the whole more freely put together. (See as to this the exposition on Matth. xxiv.) 
The sections stand related to each other in the same way as in the Sermon on the Mount, 


88 Luxe XVII. 20, 21. 


Luke xxi. (which obviously corresponds to the discourse in Matth.. 
xxiv.) in this respect that both, though treating of the same theme, 
are yet entirely apart, and do not in a single passage repeat each 
other ; and, finally, the general character of Matthew as a compiler, 
and of Luke as an exact narrator [?]—all make it in the highest 
degree probable, that we have also the elements at Matth. xxiv. of 
various discourses, all relating to the manifestation of the kingdom 
of God, while here in Luke we have a discourse exactly (though only 
perhaps partially) recorded. The ideas themselves require to be 
considered in connexion with the general doctrine, concerning the 
final consummation of all things, which will be found at Matth. 
xxiv. Here we confine ourselves to pointing out the connexion in 
which the words stand in the narrative of Luke, and to the expla- 
nation of such passages as are peculiar to this version of the dis- 
course, 

Ver, 20, 21—Without particularly explaining the occasion, the 
Evangelist opens his narrative with a remark that the Pharisees 
had enquired of Jesus as to the time (πότε, when), of the coming of 
the kingdom. (Whether it was in the village itself, ver. 12, or in 
what other place, is not said.) The Saviour first deals with the curious 
and proud enquirers, and then subjoins (at ver. 22) instructions ad- 
dressed to the disciples. Hence the brevity of Christ’s remark (as 
Schleiermacher rightly says, loc. cit.) has here its genuine significancy. 
For the question “ When cometh the kingdom of God ?” (πότε 
ἔρχεται ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ), obviously expresses not merely the 
superficial views of the Pharisees, but their self-complacent ignor- 
ance (xviii. 9). Themselves they regarded as sufficiently, by birth 
and theocratic position, constituted the legitimate subjects of the 
expected kingdom. And it therefore merely concerned them to 
ascertain the opinion of Jesus as to the time of its appearance. 
In opposition therefore to these materialistic views and hopes of the 
Pharisees, was to be brought forward the spiritual aspect of the king- 
dom of God. This our Lord does by annihilating, in the jirst place, 
their expectations of a splendid manifestation. All of outward 
glory which the Pharisees had conceived as combined in the rearing 
of an earthly Messianic kingdom, is comprehensively expressed by 
the term παρατήρησις, observation. (The expression is in the New 
Testament found only here ; it denotes literally the act of perceiv- 
ing, of observing; and then, secondarily, every thing that excites 
observation. At Exod. xii. 42, Aquila has rendered ow by 
παρατηρήσεις.) Inthe second place, the Saviour withdraws the king- 
dom of God wholly from the local and phenomenal world,—ovdé 
ἐροῦσιν, ἰδοῦ ὧδε, ἰδοῦ ἐκεῖ, nor shall they say, lo here, lo there, and 
transfers it, finally, to the world of spirit (ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν, is within 
you.) The expression ἐντὸς ὑμῶν does not make the Pharisees 


Luxe XVII. 20-21. 89 


members of the kingdom of God, but only sets before them the possi- 
bility of their being received into it, inasmuch as an internal and 
spiritual manifestation is made its universal criterion. The ex- 
planation of ἐντὸς ὑμῶν, by “ among you,” which has been adopted 
not only by Paulus, Fleck, Bornemann, but also by De Wette, 
must be utterly rejected for this reason, that the clause so understood 
forms no contrast to the antecedent ‘lo here.” The ἐστί, is, is no 
farther significant, than as indicating that the kingdom was at that 
moment existing in some of them. It may seem, however, that this 
ideal view of the kingdom of God is in contradiction to the following 
discourse (addressed to the disciples), in which the ‘‘ day of the Son of 
Man,” is referred to in such terms as represent it as an outward fact 
producing outward effects. These effects, it is true, in so far as 
they wear an aspect of terror, form a counterpart to the “‘ observa- 
tion” anticipated by the Pharisees, and the coming of the Son 
of Man is represented as an instantaneous and overwhelming 
phenomenon, in contrast to the ὦδε, here, and ἐκεῖ, there @ver. 21). 
Still, however, it remains true that the kingdom is here represented 
as external, while at ver. 21 it is styled within you. (Still more 
definitely do Matth, xxiv. and Luke xxi. represent the appearance 
of the kingdom as an externalone.) Yet this twofold conception 
and portraiture of the manifested kingdom of God (see on Matth. iii. 2), 
present it under those two aspects which mutually complete each 
other. The kingdom of God shews itself as purely spiritual in its 
origin, and also external in its perfection. It appeared in its 
spiritual form, while Christ was present in his humiliation. And 
for this reason does the Saviour bring before the Pharisees that 
aspect of it, in regard to which they were wholly mistaken. In its 
external manifestation shall the kingdom of God reveal itself, when 
Christ comes in his glory, and in this form does the Saviour partic- 
ularly set it forth at Matth. xxiv. and Luke xxi, Here he brings 
forward the future revelation of the kingdom only in connexion with. 
the fact, that periods of suffering must precede it, and that the 
appearance of the Son of God himself will bring dismay upon a 
world entangled in the sensual pursuits of life. 

By this means would the disciples, on the one hand, be comforted 
amidst their approaching struggles, and aroused to watchfulness, 
that they might encounter them in faith ; while, on the other side, 
the Pharisees would be impressed with the conviction that the 
manifestation of the kingdom did not necessarily carry with it any 
thing of a joyful nature to them ; but, on the contrary, would bring 
upon them destruction (as happened to those living in the time of 
Noah and Lot), unless they were enabled to acknowledge and em- 
brace the kingdom of God in its spiritual and internal revelation, as 
it presented itself in the appearance of the suffering Son of Man. 


90 Luxe XVII. 26-36. 


Thus viewed, the following discourse has something so perfect and 
complete in itself that one cannot doubt that the Saviour uttered it 
as found here, and that Matthew, according to his custom, rewrought 
its separate portions into that lengthened discourse, in which he 
brings together the disclosures of Jesus in regard to his second 
coming. Vers, 22-25 are all addressed in the first instance to the 
disciples. The Saviour in these words takes it for granted that they 
knew that the days of the Son of Man (the manifestation of the king- 
dom of God taken in its ideal aspect) were already come, and merely 
points them to that dark hour which had yet to overtake them before 
the inward germ could reach its outward manifestation. Our Lord 
at the same time warns them against the dangers arising from a 
false worldly hope of the speedy appearance of the kingdom (ἰδοὺ 
ὧδε, ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖ), masmuch as he represents this appearance not as 
standing in connexion with individual persons, or classes of persons, 
but as an act of Divine Omnipotence, universally traceable and 
blending all that is akin to it into one great living unity. But pre- 
vious to this revelation of divinity in its glory by the Son of Man, 
his humiliation must take place (analogous passages to Luke xvii. 25 
are to be found at Matth. xvi. 21 ; xvii. 22 ; the idea was certainly 
expressed more than once by the Saviour in different forms), and in 
this way the contrast between his exaltation and humiliation is im- 
pressively set forth, 

Ver. 26-30.—In the following verses Jesus draws a parallel be- 
tween the last and highest revelation of divinity, which presents 
itself as blessmg the pious and punishing the godless, and two 
earlier partial occurrences of the same kind, and with an obvious 
reference to the Pharisees (who at ver. 20, are viewed as belonging 
to the world), he represents the position of the unbelieving world in 
relation to the former as the same which, according to the testi- 
mony of history, took place in the latter instances. In their 
carnal security the manifestation of God was to them a day of 
destruction. 

Ver. 31-36.—To make the following admonition the more im- 
pressive, the sudden breaking of that day,* and the difficulty of 
standing its trial is, in the last verses delineated in sensible images, 
which, in part, are given also at Matth. xxiv., where the particulars 
may be compared. The reference to Lot’s wife (ver. 82) implies the 
admonition that we betimes set ourselves free from dependence on 

* The mention of the night (ver. 34) forms no contradiction to the mention of the 
day (ver. 31); the expression stands merely in general for the point of time. Nor are 
we, with De Wette, to think of the comparison which represents the coming Messiah 
as a thief in the night. The intention rather seems to be merely to bring forward, 
vers. 34-36, different situations, in which various individuals find themselves similarly 


placed, while the state of their souls is altogether diverse, and this diversity is shewn by 
the decisive act which severs them. 


Luxe XVII. 37. 91 


all earthly things, and this is strikingly followed up (ver. 33) by a 
call to self-denial. (This passage we already met with at Matth. x. 
39; it also is of sucha kind that the very nature of the circumstances 
might cause its repeated application. Its peculiar form as given 
in Luke must therefore be considered as a free variation, such as the 
author of a new characteristic saying constantly permits himself to 
give to his words. Matthew instead of the ζωογονήσει of Luke, has 
εὑρήσει αὐτήν. The term Gwoyovety, which is found again in the New 
Testament only at Acts vii. 19, is the more characteristic word ; it 
intimates that the self-denying effort which is naturally to be con- 
ceived of as united to the creative spirit, which quickens and ani- 
mates it, itself imparts the higher life. This mode of conception 
which transfers the positive and the negative at once to the subject 
himself, is elsewhere rare in Scripture. The explanation of Gwoyoveiv, 
by to keep alive, is to be rejected as an unworthy depreciation of a 
profound thought.) | 

Ver. 37.—Luke, who constantly gives us conversations rather 
than discourses, after this representation of the dissociating power 
of the day of the Son of Man, which loosens the nearest and closest 
bonds, and gathers everything into union with that which is con- 
genial to it, makes the disciples enquire as to the where (ποῦ). The 
characteristic nature of this question as well as of the Saviour’s an- 
swer (which Matthew has embodied into his context at xxiv. 28, 
without inserting the preceding question), attests the originality of 
the narrative as given by Luke ; for the disciples must be regarded 
as partly entangled by the prevailing views concerning the Mes- 
sianic kingdom. The people of Israel were probably in their esti- 
mation possessed of a legitimate title to membership in the kingdom 
of God, simply by their descent from Abraham. As then the 
Saviour’s representation did not appear suited to those who imme- 
diately surrounded them, they asked after the Where ?* probably 
thinking that the heathen world would be the theatre of the events 
described. The Saviour’s answer, however, leads them back from 
the limited to the universal, inasmuch as he assigns moral and re- 
ligious decay (πτῶμα) as a ground of destruction. In so far, conse- 
quently, as this corruption had seized on the people of Israel, they 
were exposed, like other sinners, to destruction. Only that which 
is living continues in union with the fountain of life, and is hence 
capable of being elevated into the higher sphere of existence which 
is prepared for it. (On the minuter details see Matth. xxiv. 28.) 


* By the comparison with Matth. xxiv. some have been falsely led to take the ποῦ 
=m5® in the sense of quomodo. No distinct reference, however, to Judea and Jeru- 
salem had gone before, and hence was the question, Where should all this take place? 
very appropriate in the mouth of the terrified disciples. The word ὅπου, which follows, 
of itself sufficiently determines the meaning. 


92 : Luxe XVIII. 1. 


§ 21. On THE Erricacy or PRAYER. 
(Luke xviii. 1-14.) 


That the following parable, which Luke alone records, stands 
closely connected with what precedes, admits of nodoubt. The ex- 
pression ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ αὐτοῖς at once points clearly back to xvii. 22, 
37. The explanation of the parable, however (ver. 6, seqq.) con- 
tains an express reference to the antecedent discourse on the troubles 
which were to precede the Parousia. Intermediate remarks are 
meanwhile, in all probability, left out, and these would relate to 
the dangers of the last time, and the means by which they were to 
be avoided. (Comp. Schleiermacher, p. 219.) With this the circum- 
stance that the Saviour here refers the disciples to prayer as the 
means by which to obtain God’s protection and assistance against 
the evil world, very well agrees. As regards, however, the peculiar 
form of parable here selected by Christ, I refer to what was said in 
Matth, ix. 17. The Saviour’s parables are sometimes set forth not 
under aspects of absolute, but of merely relative truth. Under the 
former God could never have been compared to an unjust judge 
(κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας), however much man may attempt to soften the 
severity of the expression. Regarded, however, from a subordinate 
and human point of view, the comparison has a depth of truth 
adapted to our experience in struggling with the difficulties of this 
earthly life. In descending, therefore, to this lower level, the Sa- 
viour gives to his parable a form which awakens our deepest sensibil- 
ities, and thus moves the mirid to active exertion. In its struggles 
with the world and with sin within and around it, while feeling 
abandoned by God (of which condition we have a picture in the case 
of Job), and left without earthly support or help, the soul resem- 
bles a‘ widow (χήρα), who in vain entreats the assistance of a wicked 
judge. But perseverance in prayer overcomes at last also the sever- 
ity of heaven. (At Matth. xv. 22, seqq. Jesus appears under an 
aspect of similar severity.) 

Ver, 1.—In the New Testament prayer appears not as a business 
or a service tied to certain hours, but as the expression and condi- 
tion of spiritual life, as breathing is of physical life. (Comp. Luke 
xxi. 36; Eph. vi. 18; 1 Thess. v.17.) Prayer, when properly of- 
fered, therefore, is to be viewed not as an utterance of determinate 
formule, but as the rising of the inmost soul to God ; as a living 
and longing desire after the manifestations of Him ; as the breath 
of the inner man. The Saviour himself is to be regarded as experi- 
encing this continual flux and reflux of the spiritual life (John i. 51; 
v. 19.) But just as in our Lord’s life, though it formed one unceas- 


LUKE XVIII. 2-8. 93 


ing prayer, there were not wanting seasons (see on Mark i, 35) in 
which with special devotedness he poured out his heart in supplica- 
tion to his heavenly Father, so also praying always (πάντοτε προ- 
σεύχεσθαι), does not exclude certain seasons in the life of a believer 
of heightened prayerfulness, which finds expression in distinct words 
and direct address to God. But as the maintenance of spiritual 
life, in so far as it is seen continually assailed by the world, presup- 
poses a struggle, Jesus adds the exhortation that we do not faint in 
this inward conflict. (The word ἐκκακεῖν belongs entirely to the 
phraseology of Paul, with which that of Luke is in some measure 
connected. There is no ground whatever for referring the term, as 
Schleiermacher, p. 220, does, to worldly avocations and the right 
management of them ; it is to be connected with the πάντοτε προ-- 
σεύχεσθαι.) 

Ver, 2-5.—In apprehending the parable, everything depends on 
our not softening down the force of the expression κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας, 
unjust gudge, for ver. T so places God in contrast with this judge, 
that, from the fact of the widow having been heard by the latter, 
the conclusion is drawn that far more surely shall suffering believers 
be heard by God. There is implied also an intimation that this appa- 
rent injustice (ddvxia) is still only a wise form in which his love is made 
manifest. (The formula Θεὸν μὴ φοβούμενος, ἄνθρωπον μὴ ἐντρεπόμενος, 
not fearing God, nor regarding man, is the strongest expression for 
reckless depravity ; and yet even this may be overcome by persever- 
ing prayer, although it satisfies the suppliant only to be rid of her 
importunities. ᾿Εντρέπεσθαι ---- reverert, occurs again at Luke xx. 13; 
Matth. xxi. 87, al. freq.) Purposely there is also attributed to the 
judge, when at last he formed the resolution to do justice to the 
persecuted widow (ἐκδικεῖν means to administer, to exercise δίκη, then 
to avenge, to punish), an impure motive. The love of justice does 
not move him, but his desire for ease (διὰ τὸ παρέχειν μοι κόπον) and 
the fear of her still farther troubling him, (The εἰς τέλος shews ὑπω- 
πιάζειν as indicating the climax of urgent entreaty on the part of 
the persecuted widow. ‘Yrwmedgew occurs again only at 1 Cor. ix. 
27. It means literally to strike under the eye, then generally, to 
burden greatly, to oppress. The reading ὑποπιάζη or ὑποπιέζῃ----ὅὁπο- 
πιάζω is the Doric form of ὑποπιέζω---ἰβ supported by a good many 
authorities. It does not, however, yield an appropriate meaning, 
inasmuch as it is a softer expression, meaning to press Uittle or 
gently. Probably the term ὑπωπιάζειν appeared to the transcribers 
too strong an expression as applied to a widow, for which reason they 
substituted a milder word.) 

Ver. 6-8.—The parable is followed by a few words intended to 
apply it to existing circumstances. Obviously it was not the Sa- 
viour’s design to explain the individual features of the parable ; he 


94 Luxe XVIII. 6-8. 


speaks neither of the widow nor the adversary. The connexion, 
however, shews that the widow is the emblem of the persecuted 
church (Isa. liv. 1), and her enemy a symbol for the Prince of this 
world, in whom we see concentrated everything opposed to the 
kingdom, and its development, which, under the guidance of God, 
must be carried forward till it reach perfection. Our Lord lays 
stress merely on the declaration of the judge, in contrast to whom 
are set forth the love and justice of God, in order that the very op- 
position may bring out more impressively the truth that is to be 
taught. (The question in which the idea is embodied serves also 
to express it more strikingly ; it awakens a conviction of the truth 
in the mind of the hearer.) The ἐκλεκτοί, elect (see as to them on 
Matth. xxii. 14) are mentioned as the object of the Divine care (é«- 
δίκησις with reference to ver. 4). These, down to the time when the 
Son of Man shall be revealed in glory (according to vii. 22, seqq). 
appear exposed to the assaults of sin on the part of the kingdom ot 
darkness, but they shall be delivered witha strong arm by the Lord 
at his appointed time, inasmuch as they continue in the faith, which 
finds its necessary expression in unceasing prayer (βοᾷν ἡμέρας καὶ 
νυκτὸς == the πάντοτε, ver. 1). Thus it is not their continued sup- 
plication which forms the condition of the avenging, but rather 
their having been elected. The elect are, in their very nature, the 
persevering believers whom their Father in heaven will unfailingly 
deliver. The assistance from on high is, however, expressly repre- 
sented with reference to verse 4, as delayed according to the counsel 
of God. To the expression οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ἐπὶ χρόνον, he would not for 
a time, the term μακροθυμεῖν, to suffer long, of ver. 7 stands parallel. 
(ΔΙακροθυμεῖν corresponds commonly with mn 478 or B28 778 In the 
sense of to bear with long-suffering and patience. As applied to 
God, the expression takes for granted the relation in which he stands 
to the sins of men. Here the only thing brought forward is the 
general idea of delay which is implied in the exercise of long-suffer- 
ing. Still the choice of such an expression in this connexion is re- 
markable. For, since the elect are to be conceived of as still belong- 
ing to sinful humanity, and since the delay of their deliverance is 
not to be regarded as accidental, but as a thing intended, having 
for its object the purification of these very elect, the term μακροθυ- 
μεῖν thus acquires an exceedingly refined meaning.) With the ἐπὶ 
χρόνον, for a time, however, stands contrasted ἐν τάχει, speedily, at 
ver. 8. It is best to explain the expression in such a way that the 
time of trial is supposed to be past. ‘‘ As soon as the object of the 
sufferings has been gained, deliverance is immediately vouchsafed.” 
This representation, finally, stands true as well in regard to the 
whole body as to each separate ἐκλεκτός, inasmuch as the advancing 
development of the whole body is perfectly analogous to that of 


Luke XVIII. 9. 95 


each individual member. The summoning of the individual from 
this lower scene is to him the coming of the Lord. This coming of 
the Lord is spoken of in the concluding verses from ver. 8, onwards, 
in such a way that in it is consummated God’s avenging of his peo- 
ple. It is difficult to see, however, how the question expressive of 
doubt, dpa εὑρήσει τὴν πίστιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ; shall he find faith on the 
earth ? is connected with the context. Should we translate the 
words, “‘ will he find faith ?”’—that is will men believe him—the 
idea would be altogether foreign to the connexion of the passage. 
For the coming of the Son of Man was, at xvii. 24, described as 
lightning, a comparison intended to express the impossibility of mis- 
taking it ; and besides, in the act of pronouncing the final sentence, 
the question is not, whether men believe him with whom they have 
to do to be the Judge. The use of the article (τὴν πίστιν, which 
only a very few MSS. omit, and that for no other reason assuredly 
than because they mistook the meaning of the passage) points to 
another explanation of the words, ‘“ will the Son of Man find the 
(true, requisite) faith 2” This, however, would mean, Would there 
be any elect ?—and thus it appears as if the Saviour himself repre- 
sented the triumph of his whole work as a questionable thing, which 
is utterly inconceivable. If, however, we compare ch. xvi. 26, 28, 
and especially Matth. xxiv. 22, it would appear that the Saviour 
hereby meant to set forth in the most impressive way the necessity 
of earnest prayer, inasmuch as the number of the elect in compari- 
son of those -who perish (as in the case of Noah’s and Lot’s contem- 
poraries) would be very small, and even this small number would 
require special Divine support to render them victorious. Thus the 
doubtful inquiry after faith connects itself closely with the admoni- 
tions in ver. 1, that we ought always to pray (δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσ- 
θαι), inasmuch as the greatness of the danger rendered obvious the 
necessity of careful effort. The faith therefore required by the- 
Saviour is not a mere assent to the truth, that Jesus is the Saviour, 
for at his coming all would clearly recognize him as such ; but faith 
marks the leading characteristic of the mental state of all those 
who are found enduring at the coming of the Lord, in so far as their 
hearts have received the influence of the Spirit of Christ, and been 
transformed into his image. Where this kindred spirit does not 
pervade the innermost recesses of their character, they can never be 
incorporated into the kingdom, in which the Spirit of Christ is the 
ruling element. 

Ver. 9—It is more difficult to point out the connexion between 
the next parable and the preceding. At first sight certainly it 
seems that the description of those against whom the parable is 
directed (πεποιθότες ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς ὅτι εἰσὶ δίκαιοι), agrees entirely with 
the Pharisees (xvii. 20); but Schleiermacher rightly reminds us (p. 


96 Luxe XVIII. 10-12. 


221) that it contradicts the idea of a parable, to bring before the 
Pharisees the figure of a Pharisee in a parabolic picture. He con- 
ceives, therefore, that it was some of the disciples themselves who 
had expressed themselves with undue forwardness, and whom the 
following parable was intended to reprove. If we suppose, however, 
that all the preceding context is connected together in the way 
Schleiermacher assumes, it would also seem inappropriate, for the 
purpose of rebuking the disciples, to borrow a figure in the parable 
from the Pharisees who were actually present (xviz 20). Hence it 
seems to me improbable that this parable was originally spoken by 
our Lord in another connexion, but was here inserted by Luke with 
reference to the Pharisees who are pointed out at ver. 9 in a way too 
marked to be otherwise explained. Hven though Jesus might there- 
fore, in the original connexion in which the parable was spoken, 
have designed to rebuke some other persons, Luke might yet 
make use of it here to manifest the Saviour’s feelings towards the 
Pharisees, 

Ver, 10-12.—The scope of this parable once more implies (as 
was observed at Luke xv.) that there was to be ascribed to the 
Pharisee a δικαιοσύνη, righteousness, in point of fact, but certainly 
one of a merely external, and legal kind ; to the publican, in point 
of fact, there is ascribed unrighteousness. For in this passage as in 
the former (loc. citat.), the intention was to set forth the relation of 
the kingdom (which reveals itself to him who is penitent, and con- 
scious of his many wants) to the situation of man umder the law. 
The endeavour to view the law and to keep it in mere externals, 
may lead to self-love and self-righteousness, which banishes man 
more completely from God than does the transgression of the law, 
in the event of this awakening a longing after an atonement. A 
shameless and reckless state of mind certainly in which the trans- 
gression of the law ends, where repentance and the felt need of an 
atonement are wanting, is worse than both. The representatives of 
these two mental tendencies, the self-loving, arrogant fulfillers of 
the law, and the humble transgressors of it, are viewed in the common 
connexion in which, while engaged in prayer, they stand towards 
God, and the ideas which in this relation suggest themselves to 
their minds, are taken as the exponents of their real mental nature. 
(The words προσηύχετο πρὸς ἑαυτόν correspond to the ‘zbanxx, In 
the expression σταθεὶς προσηύχετο a reference is made to the old Jew- 
ish practice to pray standing, 1 Kings viii. 22; 2 Chron. vi. 12 ; 
Mark xi. 25.) The first half of the prayer put into the mouth of 
the Pharisee might have been the real expression of pure piety, if 
the εὐχαριστῶ σοι, I thank thee, had implied a genuine acknowledg- 
ment that his better moral state was the work of Divine grace, and 
hence that all the honour of it belonged to God ; but then such an 


Luke XVIII. 13, 14. 97 


ackncwledgment of what God had done could never have been made 
without some expression of humiliation for his own unfaithfulness, 
which is ever most clearly recognized where God works the most 
powerfully. It is in all cases the peculiar object of the law to work 
this knowledge of sin (ἐπίγνωσις τῆς ἁμαρτίας), an object which must 
necessarily be attained in the case of all who are purified. The im- 
purity of the Pharisees who rested in the outer form, and never 
entered into the inner nature of the law’s operations, draws, as a 
reward from the keeping of the law, a self-satisfied vanity—a result 
which nothing but their impurity could have effected. Hven the 
forms of Old Testament piety (the νηστεύειν, fasting, ἀποδεκατοῦν, 
paying tithes, compare on Matth. xxiii. 23), which ought to lead the 
soul into hidden self-knowledge, and are designed to awaken the 
sense of poverty and humility, the feeling that man owes his all to 
God—even these does this self-righteous spirit transform into the 
delusive works of its own fancied merit. But the more the amount 
of these accumulates, the deeper does man sink ; the only means of 
elevating himself is to cast off the burden, and exercise repentance 
even on account of these seeming good works. (As to the meaning 
of σάββατον, week, see on Matth. xxviii. 1.) 

Ver. 13.—In this state of sincere repentance stands the publican 
whose outward appearance (he stands at a reverential distance, but 
not as a heathen, for he is to be regarded in every respect as on 
a footing with the Pharisee, and consequently as possessing 
the privileges of the law ; dares not look up, beats his breast as the 
symbol of pain, comp. Luke viii. 52) corresponds to that inward 
state, which finds expression in the prayer. Repentance and faith 
are combined in him, and he has given to him the elements of a 
new and more exalted life in the New Testament righteousness. 
The sinner (ἁμαρτωλός) is nearer to the kingdom of God than is the 
righteous, δίκαιος. 

Ver. 14.—On account of the foundation on which he thus stands, 
the publican is styled a δεδικαιομένος, justified, because along with 
repentance and faith there is given to him at the same time the 
δικαιοσύνη, righteousness, which springs from them, Nothing but a 
total misunderstanding of the Saviour’s meaning, however, can in- 
terpret the words as implying that mere repentance is sufficient to 
our attaining salvation. Rather does our Lord intend, as at Luke 
xv., to set forth the fact that only susceptible souls like those of the 
publican are fitted for the reception of his benefits ; while the 
Pharisees, on the other hand, exclude themselves from these bless- 
ings. Hence the maxim already explained by us at Luke xiv. 11, 
significantly concludes the parable, in that it portrays alike the 
ruinous consequences of pride, and the blessed results of humility, 
(See also on Matth. xxiii. 12, and Acts x. 35.) 

Vou, IL—7 


98 MattHew XIX. 1. 


B. SECOND SECTION. 


Common Account, BY THE THREE EVANGELISTS, OF THE Last 
JOURNEY OF JESUS. 


(Matth. xix. 1—xx. 34; Mark x. 1-52; Luke xviii. 15—xix. 28.) 


In Luke the connexion extends (as we already observed on Luke 
ix. 51) down to xix. 456. From this point, however, we once more 
follow Matthew, who again comes forward as the leading narrator, 
That finally we had in Luke passed over to the account of Christ’s 
last journey to Jerusalem is now most obvious, inasmuch as Mat- 
thew’s account leaves no room to doubt that he is referring to that 
last journey, while yet from this point onwards, he mainly agrees 
with Luke in the subject-matter of his narrative. In this section, 
the only thing peculiar to Luke is the history of Zaccheeus ; and 
he inserts also here (xix. 11, seq.) a parable which Matthew gives at 
a later period (xxv. 14, seq). As respects, however, the course of 
the narrative in Matthew, the connexion of this section is somewhat 
obscure, for it is difficult to determine whether or not in what fol- 
lows the hand of the author is again to be traced, bringing together 
kindred materials. At first sight this does not seem to have been 
the case. The two following chapters seem to contain merely a train of 
separate incidents and discourses, without any connecting link to 
unite them. As Luke also gives much of what is here recorded, we 
might think that Matthew, when approaching the close of Christ’s 
ministry, had kept to the course of the history, and narrated the 
incidents in their actual succession. But in opposition to this stands 
the fact, that in the following chapters down to xxv., the character 
of Matthew as a compiler so manifestly reappears that we can by 
no means say that he has adopted a new mode of treatment. Nor 
can we look upon this part of the work as an historic appendage 
(as we did chap. xiv.—xvii.), inasmuch as the elements of discourse 
which precede it are too few. In general the historical matter em- 
bodied in this section, appears in part so brief and incidental (as at 
Matth. xix. 18-15 ; xx. 17-19) that we can scarcely conceive it to 
have been in this form the proper object of the narrative. Such 
superior prominence is again given to the discourses of Jesus, that 
we are tempted to regard the history as a mere subordinate ac- 
companiment. In support of this view, we discover on a closer 
examination of the section, one general topic, the bringing out of 
which served for Matthew’s guidance in arranging the material which 
it embodies. The historic points are employed by the Evangelist 
simply that he may interweave into the advancing narrative the 


Marruew XIX. 1. 99 


idea which he wishes to carry out ; they are not in themselves the 
immediate object of his statements. The general topic referred to, 
is obviously the assigning of the requisites demanded from Christ’s 
genuine disciples. As the first of these is mentioned deliverance 
from all earthly connexions and ties (marriage and riches): as the 
second, humility, which rejoices in being able to do service to others, 
These requisites demanded of the Messiah’s genuine disciples are 
not, however, presented in abstract form, but concretely in acts to 
which the descriptive discourses are subjoined. According to this 
view, therefore, the closest connexion appears to subsist between 
chap. xviii. and the two which follow (comp. the remarks on Matth. . 
xviii. 1). In the former, namely, the character of the children of 
the kingdom, as we expressed ourselves, was delineated, and the for- 
giveness of erring brethren was above all things enjoined. The 
following set forth rather the relation in which the disciples stand 
to the temptations of the world, and demand the freeing one’s self 
from them, as an essential requisite for the disciple of Jesus. 


§ 1. On ΜΆΑΒΒΙΛΟΕ. 
[Matth. xix. 1-15; Mark x. 1-16; Luke xviii. 16, 17.) 


As regards the commencement of this section (Matth. xix. 1, 2), 
the Evangelist, who is followed by Mark, touches briefly the journey 
of Jesus to Judea. That it is his last journey from Galilee to the Capi- 
tal, which is spoken of, is shewn by comparing Matth. xx. 17, 29, with 
xxi. 1. The details of the Saviour’s last journeys can, however, as 
was formerly remarked (on Luke ix. 51), be learned only from the 
narrative of John. All the less, therefore, owing to the great brevity 
of Matthew, ought we, from the words beyond the Jordan, to draw 
any conclusion as to the direction of the journey. Unquestionably 
Christ on leaving Galilee might, in the first instance, take the direct 
road through Samaria towards Jerusalem, and yet Matthew might 
refer to Pereea, inasmuch as the Saviour, according to John xi. 54, 
again travelled northward from Jerusalem, and abode in Ephraim. 
Without distinguishing between the main journey and the shorter 
excursions, Matthew might combine into a single expression an 
allusion to his leaving Galilee, touching on Pereea, and travelling to 
Judea, For, the whole mention of the journey is obviously enough 
a mere formula of transition, as is shewn by the subsequent expres- 
sion, ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοί κ. τι λ., and the remark that 
Jesus cured many, instead of which Mark χ. 1, has taught. The 
loosely appended πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου, beyond the Jordan, of Matthew, 
is given more definitely by Mark, who conjoins the διὰ τοῦ πέραν τοῦ 
Ἰορδάνου with ἔρχεται.) 


100 MattuHew XIX. 3. 


Ver, 8.—On the occasion of a difficult question in controversy* 
being put with an impure view (πειράζοντες αὐτόν) by the Pharisees 
to our Lord, relative to the grounds of divorce, Matthew unfolds (in 
the words of Jesus) the New Testament idea of marriage, and points 
out its relation to the ministers of the New Testament. This lead- 
ing point in the narrative is omitted in Mark, who intends merely to 
give the naked fact, but afterwards records also the conversation, in 
a connexion however so transposed, as to make it obvious that the 
narrative appears in his gospel in a form decidedly less original than 
with Matthew. For, according to Mark, the Saviour refers the en- 
_quirers at once to Moses, who had permitted a bill of divorce to be 
given. The reason of this permission Jesus deduces from the sins 
of men, inasmuch as the idea of marriage implies no possibility 
of divorce. According to this way of presenting the matter, it would 
appear as if the only question were, whether divorce should or 
should not be permitted (as is shewn also at Mark x. 2), while Mat- 
thew takes it for granted, that according to the opinion of the en- 
quirers, divorce was allowable, and makes them merely ask as to 
the conditions under which it should be permitted. (This is point- 
ed to by the ἀπολῦσαι κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν, Matth. xix. 3.) This en- 
quiry, which arose most naturally from the circumstances of those 
times (while that of Mark was less appropriate to them), is most fit- 
tingly followed in Matthew, by the declaration which stands equally 
in decisive opposition to both views, that there ought to be no di- 
vorce ; and not until after their appeal to Moses, is the regulation 
which permitted it, shewn to have been occasioned solely by sin. We 
have here again an instance, shewing that Matthew, in respect to 
the essential thought, surpasses in originality Mark, whose power 
of perception is confined to things external. (The idea that these 
enquirers meant to refer to the marriage of Herod Antipas, within 
whose jurisdiction this incident may have occurred [although there 
is no indication whatever that it really did so], is, in my view, inad- 
missible for this reason, that the Saviour would in that case have 
made shorter work with them. The enquiring Pharisees did not 
tempt our Saviour somuch from malice as from the love of novelty ; 
they wished to see how Jesus would declare himself upon the cele- 
brated Rabbinical controversy.) The form of the question as set 
forth by Matthew εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνθρώπῳ (is it a regulation valid for all 


* Deut. xxiv. 1, the putting away of the woman on account of sat ning (literally 
“nakedness of any kind”) is allowed. The school of Shammai, at the time of Jesus, 
understood τσ» literally of unbecoming attire, that of Hillel figuratively, of every 
fancied fault, even of bare dislike. Christ opposes not merely the school of Hillel, but op- 
poses to the letter of Deut. xxiv. 1—to the permission of divorce for every -:n—niny, the 
spirit, to wit: that divorce is absolutely unallowed, except where the other party has 
already by fornication (πορνεία), ἡ. 6.. the actual carnal crime (not indeed by adultery 
(μοιχεία) as spiritually explained, Matth. v. 28), wickedly dissolved the marriage.—[H. 


MarrHEw PRE? 426: 101 


men ? comp. ver. 5), ἀπολύσαι τὴν γυναῖκαι αὑτοῦ κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν, to 
put away his wife for every cause, points to the exposition so much 
contested among the Rabbins, of the words 123 n:z in the passage 
Deut. xxiv, 1, in which Moses, in cases of divorce, commands the 
making out of a bill of divorce. The school of Hillel explained the 
words as meaning, that when anything in his wife displeased a hus- 
band, it should form a sufficient reason for his giving her up. The 
adherents of Rabbi Shammai took the expression in a more re- 
stricted sense, as referring only to what in fact was scandalous and 
dishonourable (according to this view the LXX. render it ἄσχημον 
πρᾶγμα). In the words κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν, for every cause (722-52 2) - 
there is expressed therefore that exposition of the Mosaic law which 
agrees with the opinions of Hillel’s followers, and the question con- 
sequently is so put as to request his opinion on the correctness of 
that view. The lawfulness of divorce itself (according to ver. 7) is 
taken for granted. 

Ver. 4-6.—In replying to the question, Jesus takes no notice 
whatever of the conflicting expositions, but unfolds the original 
view of marriage as founded on the ideal relation of the sexes. In 
this there is necessarily implied the indissoluble nature of the bond, 
inasmuch as marriage, in its true import, was intended to be the 
union of man and woman, both in body and soul. Our Lord, with 
reference to this view, points the Pharisees to the sacred records of 
the Old Testament (whose Divine nature he manifestly confirms by 
thus using them), and refers first of all to Gen. i. 27. (The Hebrew 
words are given according to the LX X. ; the αὐτούς corresponds to 
the ons.—To the ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς Mark subjoins κτίσεως. He has undoubt- 
edly, according to Gen. i, 1, understood the expression Ἀπ ΔΌΣ ΝΞ, 
in the beginning God created, as applying to the whole act of crea- 
tion, described in the first chapter, and hence he includes the crea- 
tion of man, as forming an integral part of the whole work). Un- 
doubtedly our Lord intended by mentioning the circumstance that 
man and woman were created at once, to intimate that they are 
therefore to be regarded as forming one connected, and for this 
reason, indivisible unity, a truth expressly stated at ver. 6. This 
reference to the Mosaic account of man’s creation, however, the 
Saviour follows up by a formal quotation from Gen. ii. 24, which 
also follows the LXX. (The καὶ εἶπεν, and said, is without doubt to 
be referred to the subject before mentioned, ὁ ποιήσας, he who made. 
For, although according to the narrative of Genesis, the words in 
question are spoken by Adam, yet our Lord refers them to God [as 
is done all through the Epistle to the Hebrews], and correctly, in as 
far as he is by His Spirit properly the author and creator of Scrip- 
ture, and the individuals who speak are to be regarded merely as 
the organs of his Spirit. Only on this supposition is there force in 


102 MattrHEew XIX. 4-6. 


the argument drawn from Adam’s words. According to the con- 
nexion this passage points also to the indissoluble nature of 
the marriage tie which the Lord opposes to the low views of it 
held by the Pharisees. Of such overpowering strength appears this 
bond that the closest ties of another kind (as those to parents) are 
dissolved by it. (In Adam’s words the leaving of father and mother 
must be understood immediately of his descendants, to whom, under 
the feeling of his essential unity with his wife, he could transfer the 
same relation, feeling the consciousness that it was a universal 
attribute of humanity. The significant passage, Eph. v. 31, 82, is 
conceived from a still profounder view of the relation.) The pecu- 
liar characteristic of the marriage tie, however, is set forth by the 
expression εἶναι εἰς σάρκα μίαν, being one flesh, which points back to 
the words ἕνεκεν τούτον, for this reason (j2->2), by which in the 
second chapter of Genesis ver. 24 stands connected with ver. 23. 
This bodily conformability ("v2 »v>2), is the condition of the at- 
tractive power uniting man and woman ; and the peculiarity of 
marriage is shewn to consist in there being between the truly mar- 
ried man and woman not only’one spirit and one soul (which is 
found also in other kinds of high relations) but also one flesh. Mar- 
riage in its ideal form, as originally constituted, and as again restored 
by Christ, appears thus as an union of the entire nature of man in 
love, from which all union (which consists in giving and receiving) 
proceeds. It presupposes unity and conjunction of soul and spirit, 
but has the bodily union of the sexes as its characteristic peculiarity 
—an union which, on the one hand, indeed, is the lowest form of 
connexion, having its analogies in animal existence ; but, on the 
other hand, presupposing the blending of soul and spirit, is the very 
summit and flower of all union and communion, and for this very 
reason forms the condition of the continuance of the human race. 
It is owing to the holy nature of this bodily union that it is to be 
considered as indissoluble, as one which man cannot, and which only 
God can dissever, and which the Omniscient does really dissever 
only in cases (according to the permission given in the Old Testa- 
ment for divorce), where the union [has been already practically dis- 
solved and annihilated by the guilt of one party—a dissolution 
effected not by mere uncongeniality of character (for this can be 
overcome by the power of the new birth) but only where the moral 
rupture has consummated itself in actual adultery]. Besides this 
reference of the passage, however, founded primarily on the context, 
there is another point in it deserving of remark, on account of the 
peculiar expressions selected. For the words stand thus (in Matth. 
as well as in Mark) καὶ ἔσονται of δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν, and the two, etc. 
They contain therefore the most decisive declaration on the subject 
of monogamy, which can alone be considered as in harmony with the 


Marruew XIX. 7-9. 103 


true idea of marriage. The permission of polygamy in the Old Tes- 
tament can only be considered, like divorce, as a temporary relaxa- 
tion on the part of God. This declaration, finally, is the more re- 
markable, as it is given by our Lord himself (though in the words 
of the Old Testament) and is to be found only in the translation ot 
the LXX. (the original Hebrew text runs thus, *hx sea 2m). We 
have here, therefore, a new instance of this translation being made 
use of, even where it differs from the original (see on this at Luke 
iv. 18). The view which these translators, owing to their correct 
perception of the Old Testament passage, introduced, is ac- 
knowledged by the Saviour as right, and confirmed by his Divine 
authority. 

Ver. 7, 8.—The Pharisess understood Jesus quite correctly as 
disallowing divorce in every form (see on Matth. v. 31), and in op- 
position, they put to him the question, how could Moses then have 
admitted of divorce ? The special question as to the cause of di- 
vorce, they entirely depart from. On this our Lord informs them 
that this Divine ordinance in the Old Testament was rendered 
necessary by the oxAnpoxapdia, hardness of heart, of men, (In the 
Old Testament, at Ezek. iii. 7, the adjective σκληροκάρδιος occurs as 
equivalent to st-rup. Σκληρός, σκληρότης denotes, in the language 
of the New Testament, a state of insusceptibility for spiritual har- 
mony or discord. From the blunted state of moral feeling, there- 
fore, the Saviour deduces the permission given for divorce, which is 
a benefit, inasmuch as it often prevents greater sins). The possi- 
bility of the law’s severity being thus relaxed by a God of holiness 
and of truth is easily explained, when we call to mind that sim has 
destroyed the ideal of the marriage relationship as a perfect union 
of spirit, soul, and body, so that the holiest marriage among sinful 
men can only be viewed as an approximation to this ideal. In so 
far, therefore, as every marriage connexion is but imperfect, wisdom 
requires provision for its possible dissolution, inasmuch as the out- 
ward union of those who are inwardly separate is only a delusion. 
The Divine law, therefore, does not contradict itself when in the Old 
Testament divorce is permitted, and in the New Testament is for- 
bidden ; for, while this latter prohibition has respect to true mar- 
riage as corresponding to its ideal, the former permission refers to 
marriages such as are found in point of fact among sinful men, which 
carry with them no real union, and for this very reason demand, 
among other preliminary suppositions, the possibility that the tie 
may be dissolved. 

Ver. 9.—Here Matthew concludes the conversation with the 
Pharisees that he may subjoin the admonitions which Jesus ad- 
dressed to his disciples, and which he wished them to lay to heart. 
Mark x. 10 relates very appropriately the circumstance that the dis- 


104 MattrHew XIX. 9. 


ciples had commenced the following conversation when alone (ἐν τῇ 
οἰκίᾳ), after withdrawing from the Pharisees. Tirst, then, our Lord 
repeats the principle (already expressed at Matth. v. 82), that he 
who, after a separation, marries again, committeth adultery, and he 
who induces a divorced woman to enter anew into marriage, caus- 
eth her also to commit adultery. This principle stands obviously 
in close connexion with what goes before. For, since marriage is 
in its nature indissoluble, every new connexion entered into in 
consequence of a separation must be considered as adultery ; he 
who wishes to separate must at least, after the separation, remain 
unmarried. In Mark x. 12 the idea is somewhat modified, in so far 
as the woman is represented as separating herself from the man, but 
this does not essentially alter the case. The only case our Lord ex- 
cepts is that of fornication, by which we are to understand here 
every kind of unlawful carnal intercourse on the part of a married 
person, the man as well as the woman. ‘This forms an abolition, in 
point of fact, of the bodily unity of the married persons, and is 
therefore not so much a ground for their separation as the separation 
itself. Where this has taken place, therefore, a second marriage is 
permitted even by our Lord ; but whether this permission only ex- 
tends to the innocent party is not clear— Undeniably, then, as was 
already remarked at Matth. v. 81, this passage forms the most im- 
portant declaration by our Lord on the subject of marriage, since it 
does not here, as in the former instance, stand connected with com- 
mandments, the literal carrying out of which is self-evidently im- 
possible. Hence, therefore, it is easy to see how the marriage tie is 
held to be indissoluble in the Catholic Church. Not the less, how- 
ever, had the Reformers a perfect right to act as they did in soften- 
ing down this strictness, and refusing to carry out exactly the ideal 
view of marriage as applicable to the visible church, many of the 
members of which were still living in the hardness of heart which 
belonged to the old dispensation. For, Jesus has never acted the 
part of a mere external lawgiver ; he has enacted no laws which, 
under all circumstances, must, to the very letter, be applied 
to the external relations of life, but his is an internal and spirit- 
ual legislation. He who has not the Spirit, and does not live 
in Him, is not the man for whom the commandments of Christ 
were given ; he stands under the authority of Moses. The relaxa- 
tion then made by Moses must be still in force in favour of such a 
man. As not a single other external law, however, has been given 
by Christ which admits of being at once, like the command, Thou 
shalt not steal, applied to politico-ecclesiastical relations, it is not 
probable that this would be done only in the case of marriage. 
That Jesus meant his words thus to apply to the spiritual Church, 


Matruew XIX. 10-14, 105 


and not indiscriminately to the visible church, is shewn clearly by 
what follows. 

Ver. 10, 11.—For, the disciples expressed their hesitation at 
these strict principles, obviously on the supposition that in this 
sinful world one may easily be united in marriage with a person 
from whom he might wish himself separated. To this the Saviour 
replies, All men cannot receive this saying, but they to whom it is 
given (οὐ πάντες χωροῦσι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον͵ ἀλλ᾽ οἷς δέδοται.) The 
λόγος οὗτος, this saying, refers naturally to that which precedes, not 
to that which follows ; for the words otherwise contain no answer 
to the question. In that case, however, it is clear that Jesus had 
not intended to give utterance to any literal commandment, for 
that would have embraced all. These words have no meaning unless 
it be necessary to reach a particular spiritual standing-point before 
one can understand the way in which the command of Jesus is to be 
applied and acted on. (In ver. 10 αἰτία, like m732 and causa, is to 
be understood as meaning ‘‘ legal relation.”) 

Ver. 12.—There is a difficulty, however, in connecting the εἰσὶ 
yap εὐνοῦχοι k. τ A., for there are eunuchs, etc., with the preceding. 
How does the remark as to the εὐνουχίζεσθαι, making one’s self a 
eunuch, stand connected with the previous remarks on the indisso- 
luble nature of marriage? So, doubtless, as to confirm the de- 
claration of the apostle. Assuredly, says he, it is better not to 
marry: there is also a holy state in which man may continue as a 
eunuch (although eunuchs are from of old the most despised of 
men. See Isaiah lvi. 3), but it is not for every one to attempt 
it. It is only when man for the sake of God refrains from marriage 
that a blessing rests on it—he gives up the prospect of earthly pos- 
terity that he may have spiritual children, But in this case, also, our 
Lord gives no positive law. Without laying upon any one a bur- 
densome yoke, he merely says ‘‘ there ave eunuchs,” leaving it for 
every individual to decide freely as he thinks right, and concludes 
his discourse with the declaration ὁ δυνάμενος χωρεῖν χωρείτω, he that 
is able, etc,, which, taken in connexion with the preceding to whom 
it is given, must be understood as referring to a special work of 
grace, in this instance, namely, a χάρισμα τῆς ἐγκρατείας, grace of 
continence, which is not given to all, Jor this very reason, however, 
we have here no law for all or for any, such as the clergy, for 
instance, but the whole idea of the passage is rather to be explained 
according to 1 Cor, viil., to which chapter we would refer as a com- 
mentary on this declaration of our Lord. 

Ver. 13, 14.—As regards the following verses, and the ideas 
therein contained, comp. Matth. xvii, 1, seq. The only question 
here is, whether we are to consider these verses as a whole complete 
in itself. In Luke they are so obviously connected with xviu, 14, 


106 MartHew XIX. 16. 


that it is clear they are not recorded for their own sake, but on 
account of the antecedent idea which they are intended to explain, 
I understand the same to be the case with Matthew, although the 
connexion here is not so close, but the expression he that is able to 
receive it, let him receive it, agrees well with a reference to that state 
of mind in which the ability is most successfully maintained, and 
this is brought very clearly out by what follows. For entering into 
the kingdom of God, there is enjoined the child-like feeling which 
enables us most easily to discern the gifts which have been bestowed 
upon each, and consequently puts us in circumstances to fulfil our 
calling. In Mark, who omits those important words of Matthew 
which form the very link of the connexion, this little incident cer- 
tainly does stand by itself as a complete whole, but all through this 
Evangelist we meet with a series of facts united by no common 
bond. Of that reference to infant baptism which it is so common 
to seek in this narrative, there is clearly not the slightest trace to 
be found. The Saviour sets the children before the apostles as sym- 
bols of spiritual regeneration, and of the simple childlike feeling 
therein imparted. (But infant baptism stands connected with 
regeneration only in so far as we view it In combinaticn with the 
personal and conscious reception of the Gospel—an act which con- 
firmation is intended to represent.) On the part of the parents, 
however, when they brought their children, there was evidently 
nothing more intended than to have a spiritual blessing bestowed 
upon them, and this the little ones received by the laying on of 
Christ’s hands. Being conveyed to them through the accom- 
panying prayer, it could not fail to exercise a beneficent spiritual 
influence. 


§ 2. On RicHEs. 
(Matth. xix. 16—xx. 16; Mark x. 17-31; Luke xviii. 18-30.) 


The similar connexion in which this occurrence stands in all the 
three Evangelists, and its being followed in each by the same dis- 
courses, makes it probable that it really belongs to this point 
in the history. The discourses, however, are evidently in this 
case also the principal object. In these, which merely rest upon 
the previously recorded narrative, we are taught the necessity of 
being set free from all earthly possessions as another requisite to our 
being fitted for the kingdom of God. By this reference in Matthew, 
the connexion is established with sufficient clearness. In Luke the 
narrative stands unconnected with what precedes, and is therefore 
to be considered merely as next in the order of those successive nar- 
ratives taken from the account of Christ’s last journey. As respects, 
however, the form in which it is presented to us, we find Mark again 


Marrnew XIX. 16, 17. “" 


displaying even an unwonted power in depicting the scene. (He 
describes graphically the hastening forward of the young man, ver. 
17, the liking which Jesus conceived for him, as expressed at ver. 
21, and the impressive way in which, alter his retirement, the 
Saviour addressed his disciples, ver. 24.) Matthew, on the other 
hand, presents in the discourses many considerable peculiarities which 
display anew his skill in seizing and imparting what is essential. 

Ver. 16.—During the journey (Mark x. 17, ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ 
εἰς ὁδόν) there pressed forward an ἄρχων, ruler (Luke xviii. 18, pro- 
bably a young man of some noble family [Matth. xix. 22] who had 
been chosen president of the synagogue at some place not more partic- 
ularly described) into the presence of Jesus, and asked him for 
spiritual aid and instruction. That the zeal of this young man was 
pure, and the reverence he shewed for Jesus (γονυπετήσας αὐτόν 
according to Mark) was well meant, is clearly seen both from the 
way in which Jesus treats him, and from the Saviour’s own express 
declaration. (Comp. Mark x. 21). But the erroneous nature of his 
religious efforts is sufficiently shewn at once by the very question 
which he puts. Noble in disposition, and filled with ardour in the 
pursuit of what is good, he seems to have struggled after holiness 
and perfection in a legal manner ; but being destitute of all deeper 
insight into the nature of sin or of righteousness, these exertions 
only filled him with self-satisfaction, and he hoped through the 
assistance of Christ, to attain in this a still higher advancement ; 
to have new tasks assigned him, that he might heap up for himself 
still greater spiritual possessions. The object of his efforts, described 
in general terms, he represents as eternal life, (ζωὴ αἰώνιος), and he 
seemed to give it the pre-eminence over the life and the blessings of 
the present life (αἰὼν οὗτος) ; in reality, however, he was still cleay- 
ing to the good things of this world, as was subsequently shewn. 
The address διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, good master, as well as the enquiry 
“‘ What shall I do ?” are notin themselves of a captious kind, and 
may have proceeded (like the question Acts ii. 37) from a truly pen- 
itential frame of mind. But the significant expression which 
Matthew has preserved to us τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω ; What good thing 
shall I do? betrays the inward perversion of his nature. Having 
no perception of the good in its true nature, he takes for granted in 
himself the possibility and the capacity of bringing forth something 
good from the treasure of his own heart, and he merely enquires as 
to the τί, what? To the good things heretofore performed and 
treasured by him, he wishes to add new forms of splendid piety. 
Probably he expected and hoped to have some kind of strict legal 
observances laid upon him, which it would have flattered his pride 
to have performed in his own strength. 

Ver. 17.— With admirable wisdom does our Lord treat this young 


108 Mattruew XIX. 17. 


man. First he awakens in him a perception of the true nature of 
what is really good. The address of Jesus to the enquirer is given 
by the gospel history in a twofold Recension, but it admits of ne 
doubt that in Matthew the reading τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ Tod ἀγαθοῦ ; εἷς 
ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good ? 
One is the good, is the right one. For, in the first place, it is sup- 
ported by very weighty authorities (B. D. L. many versions and 
Fathers); next it is the more difficult, and the reading τί με λέγεις 
ἀγαθόν might easily be taken from Mark and Luke. It is more 
difficult to determine which Recension gives the Saviour’s original 
expression. I consider the form of the question as given by Mat- 
thew the original one, for according to it the Saviour’s remark 
attaches itself most closely to the τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω; What good thing 
shall I do? Still the τί pe λέγεις ἀγαθόν; Why callest thou me good 2 
contains an idea so peculiar, that assuredly it cannot have pro- 
ceeded from tradition, To me, therefore, it appears most probable 
that of this conversation on the good we have, in the two Recen- 
sions, only fragments preserved to us, but these sufficiently enable 
us to form a well-grounded opinion as to the contents of the conver- 
sation. For, as regards the leading object of the discourse, according 
to the version of it in Matthew, it is evident that our Lord, by the 
remark ti ἐρωτᾷς κ, τ. λ., means to awaken in the young man a 
conviction, that there sprang in his heart no fountain of good out 
of which he could produce, at will, whatever he chose; that in 
general the ἀγαθόν was not diverse nor manifold, but was in the 
highest sense, One, namely, God himself, the absolute good 
(αὐτοαγαθόν). This idea, rightly understood, carried with it an in- 
timation that there was nothing good in him (unless perhaps his 
higher vocation), and consequently an exhortation to repentance, 
and still farther, the information, that what is good is not to be 
found by heaping up work upon work, but by coming to God, who, 
as being the Good, imparts also to men all that is good when he 
gives them himself. According to the version given by Mark and 
Luke, we find, indeed, also in the Saviour’s words the same reference 
to God as the source of all good, but we find in addition an impor- 
tant hint as to the position in which the young man stood to Christ. 
It is the address διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, good teacher, that is referred to in 
the question τί pe λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; why callest thou me good? The 
young man may have used the good asa mere phrase in order to 
introduce into his discourse a complimentary epithet. The uncon- 
sciousness thus manifested Jesus reproves in these words, in order 
that he may lead him to an idea of that which is truly good. For, 
that the enquirer only saw in Christ a mere (though indeed a distin- 
guished) teacher, from whom he might acquire information of one 
kind or other, the Saviour perceived beyond a doubt, alike in the 


MartHew XIX. 18-20. 109 


question, and in the character of the man; but one having such 
views could not appropriately use the epithet good. He rejects this 
name, therefore, and refers him to Him who was Goodness itself. 
But in this our Lord does not deny that he himself is precisely the 
ἀγαθός, good, inasmuch as the one true God reflects itself in him as 
his image ; but it was not fitting that this truth should be presented 
to the young man in a dogmatic form, but should develope itself as 
a living reality from his own inward experience. Could he have 
been prevailed upon to exercise faith in the words of Jesus, as a 
revelation of the highest good, and could he have felt it his duty 
to abandon all in order to follow him (ver. 21), it would in that case 
have been made clear to him that this one God was not a being dis- 
tant and inaccessible, before whom he had to adorn himself out- 
wardly with good works, but was inexpressibly near to him inasmuch 
as he had essentially revealed himself to him by his Son, and 7m him 
by his Spirit. 

Without doubt the young man, owing to the impurity of his 
nature, did not understand the exalted ideas of the Saviour, and for 
this reason Jesus, in order more deeply to arrest him, refers him to 
the commandments (ἐντολαί). (The particular forms in which the 
law (νόμος) expressed itself.) That the Saviour connects the entrance 
into eternal life with the keeping of the commandments, is founded 
necessarily on the very nature of the law. (Comp. on John xii, 50, 
ἡ ἐντολὴ Θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιός ἐστιν). As the expression of the will of 
God, the fulfilling of it is the highest thing which includes all else. 
But precisely as being the will of the highest it demands perfect ful- 
fillment (Gal. 111. 10, cursed is he who continueth not in all that is 
written in the law), and, consequently presupposes the possession of 
Divine power. As this is wanting in sinful man, the law becomes a 
curse to him (Rom. vii, 10, 11), and only in the case of the penitent 
is it transformed into a blessing, by working in them the knowledge 
of sin (ἐπίγνωσις τῆς ἁμαρτίας, Rom. 111. 20), and so awakening the 
felt need of redemption. For the very purpose of calling forth this 
feeling in him, Christ refers him to the law. 

Ver. 18-20.—The young man, however, in his moral blindness, 
believes that he has kept the commandments. Boldly does he make 
the boastful avowal, “all these have I kept” (πάντα ταῦτα ἐφυλαξάμην), 
and he even adds ‘‘ from my youth” (ἐκ νεότητός pov), We must 
suppose at all events in him a certain external righteousness ; 
there was manifest in him a moral striving. But, in the first place, 
he was entirely devoid of an insight into the spiritual nature of the 
commandments (as developed in Matth. v.); and again there was 
wanting to him the true Old Testament righteousness (as described 
at Luke i. 6.) For this righteousness had, as the companion of 
earnest legal striving, a deep longing after holiness and perfection, 


110 Marttruew XIX. 21, 22, 


which concentrated itself in the expectation of the Messiah, while 
in this young man there was exhibited a forward self-satisfaction 
which led him to ask, What lack I yet ἢ (τί ἔτι ὑστερῶ ;) Matth. xix. 
20. (The Evangelists use great liberty in enumerating the com- 
mandments. Matthew gives them more fully ; he has subjoimed 
also the passage Ley. xix. 18. Mark x. 19 has comprehended the 
latter precepts of the Decalogue under the words μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς, 
defraud not. The term ἀποστερεῖν is used there in the sense of to 
rob, to appropriate what is another’s, just as at 1 Cor. vi. 8, where 
it is conjoined with ἀδικεῖν.) 

Ver, 21, 22.—After this declaration our Lord lays hold on the 
weak point of his character, in order to bring him to the conscious- 
ness of his sins, and show him the way to perfection, to the posses- 
sion of the true Good. According to the faithful representation of 
Mark, our Lord beheld him with a look of affectionate love 
(ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν); he recognized his noble vocation, 
for the kingdom, which brought him up to the narrow gate, only 
his eyes were not yet opened so as to perceive the nature of sin and 
righteousness. When his eye was opened, however, by the hard 
demand made on him by our Lord, the hour of trial came upon the 
young man. The thing demanded was the free and determined 
choice of a course of earnest self-denial, and here, before his opened 
spiritual vision, there revealed itself (whence the sad sense of shame), 
the secret sin of his heart. The command of the εἷς Θεὸς ἀγαθός, 
one good God, came home to his heart, but he loved the world more 
than God. Nevertheless, this treatment of the young man on the 
part of our Lord has its difficulties. It seems as if the demand 
made upon him were too hard. Certainly it cannot be taken as a 
general requirement applicable to men in all circumstances ; for in 
the case of a person whose calling had not yet arisen above the Old 
Testament level, such a demand would have been inappropriate. 
Under the Old Testament, sacrifice symbolized the consecration of 
one’s own possessions to God ; but in sacrifice the gift always ap- 
pears as only partial, while Christ demands that the young man 
should give up his whole property (ὅσα ἔχεις according to Mark and 
Luke.)* ‘This young man evidently stood at the gate of the New 
Testament life, which the Saviour here opens to him; but for 

* It were well to read in connexion with this the golden treatise of the able and in- 
genious Clement of Alexandria, Quis dives salvetur, which contains the most profound 
commentary on this narrative. On the words πώλησον τὰ ὑπάρχοντά cov, he remarks, 
τί δὲ τοῦτό ἐστιν; οὐχ ἃ ΤΡ χεΐίρως δέγονταί τινες, τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν οὐσίαν ἀποῤῥίψαι 
προστάσσει καὶ ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ τῶν χρημάτων ἀλλὰ τὰ δόγματα περὶ τῶν χρημάτων 
ἐξορίσαι τῆς ψυχῆς, τὴν περὶ αὐτὰ πτοΐαν καὶ νόσον, τὰς μερίμνας τὰς ἀκάνθας τοῦ βίου, al 
τὸ σπέρμα τῆς ζωῆς συμπνίγουσιν. Otte yap μέγα καὶ ζηλωτὸν τὸ τηνάλλως ἀπορεῖν 
χρημάτων μὴ ἐπὶ λόγῳ ζωῆς. Οὕτω μὲν γὰρ dv ἧσαν of μηδὲν ἔχοντες μηδαμῆ, ἀγνοοῦντες 
δὲ Oedv καὶ δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ, κατ᾽ αὐτὸ μὸνον τὸ ἀκρῶς ἀπορεῖν μακαριώτατοι καὶ Θεοφι- 
λέστατοι (cap. xi). 


MatrHew XIX. 21, 22. 111 


the life in the new kingdom the surrender of all that is our own is 
universal (comp. ver. 24, seq). The circumstance that the invitation 
to enter into the kingdom of God was given to this young man under 
the form of the injunction, ‘sell thy possessions” (πώλησόν σου τὰ 
ὑπάρχοντα), arose undoubtedly from this, that this man was bound 
to the world, principally through mammon, and therefore at his 
entrance into the kingdom this bond must be severed. If we call 
to mind the leading temptation of this young man involved in an- 
other part of his character, he might possibly have been able to 
fulfil a commandment of this kind, to sell his goods, without gain- 
ing anything by the act, for the advancement of his inner life ; nay, 
he might have been injured by it, for his pride might have found 
support from it as from a work performed in his own strength. But, 
on the other hand, if the young man could have rendered obedience 
to this commandment of our Lord, he could only have been enabled 
to do so by the strength of God through faith ; for it was the main 
bond which kept him fettered. Irrespectively then of the particular 
form which this commandment assumes, it contains nothing beyond 
what is comprised in the general law given by Jesus to all his disci- 
ples, ‘‘ he who does not give up all for my sake, is not worthy of me ;” 
and although each is held in bondage by his own separate tie, yet is 
it incumbent on every one to sacrifice all things. In this command 
of our Lord, therefore, requiring the young man to sell his property, 
we are not to conceive of the external possession as standing apart 
from the inward love of it. Strictly the /atter was to be mortified 
by the relinquishing of the former, and only in thus far is any im- 
portance to be attached to the external sacrifice. Again, the selling 
of his possessions is to be viewed as merely the one side of an act, 
which is only rendered complete by the following of Jesus conse- 
quent thereon. The former is the negative (the deliverance from 
the world); the latter is the positive (union with the kingdom and 
its Lord.) Mark also (x. 21) immediately adds, ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν, 
taking up the cross, as denoting continued perseverance in the fol- 
lowing of Christ, and the difficulties which are connected with it, 
In the same way also the self-denial is not. to be conceived of as a 
work standing by itself, but as deriving all its importance from this, 
that it is done for the sake of Jesus (ver 29). It is when viewed in 
this light also that the ἕν σοι ὑστερεῖ, one thing thou lackest, in the 
words of our Lord, first acquires its full meaning ; for this one thing 
is nothing less than the crucifying of the whole old man (which in 
the case of this youth existed in the form of attachment to riches), 
and so likewise is the πάντα, all things, inasmuch as in this one 
thing all things are included. The entrance into this one thing is 
also the way to perfection (τελειότης, Matth. xix. 21), for this reason, 
that it can be trodden only in the strength of God, and man can 


112 Matruew XIX. 23, 24. 


become perfect and good only in this way, that the one perfect and 
good God make his heart his temple. (Comp. on Matth. v. 48.) 
The truth of Christ’s words, that the new birth into eternal life 
consists in the giving up of all that is our own, and in the consecra- 
tion of our whole property and possessions to him who is their 
Author, must have deeply impressed the young man. For, as Jesus 
had no outward authority over him, and as in the Old Tes- 
tament law, no such requirement was anywhere to be found, it 
would seem that he might with a good conscience have refused it. 
But that he could not do. The Spirit who accompanied the words 
of Jesus had deeply penetrated his heart, had enlightened the dark- 
ness within, had revealed to him the true (though hitherto entirely 
unknown) way of regeneration, and thus he felt himself bound by the 
power of the truth. But the chain which he bore was too heavy, 
he could not call forth within his heart that free determined choice 
of the narrow way, which is absolutely necessary, and the scarcely 
opened gate of Paradise closed itself again before his weeping eyes. 
Ver, 23, 24.—Over the subsequent course of this young man’s 
life, there is cast a veil.* It is not impossible, however, that his 
sorrow may have changed subsequently into pure repentance, and 
that upon this ground he may afterwards have found deliverance 
from those bonds in which he lay as yet too firmly fettered. Our 
Lord, in the meantime, at once employs this impressive incident for 
the edification of his disciples, but not im such a way as to make 
the weakness of the young man the subject for scorn or rebuke, but 
to lay bare the similar state of feeling which existed in the hearts 
of many, and so lead them to humility. With warning looks sur- 
veying the circle of his followers (περιβλεψάμενος, Mark x. 23), Jesus 
exclaims, δυσκόλως πλούσιος εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν σὐρανῶν, 
hardly will a rich man enter into the kingdom of heaven. And as 
the disciples stand astonished, the Saviour once more repeats the 
same words with the strongest emphasis (according to Mark x. 24). 
Obviously the expression, πλούσιος, rich (according to Mark and Luke, 
χρήματα ἔχων), pots back to the many possessions (κτήματα πολλά) 
of the young man (ver, 22), but the additional clause of Mark, 
which more definitely defines it, “they who trust in riches” {(πεποι- 
θότες ἐπὶ τοῖς χρήμασιν), points at once to the right interpretation. 
Clearly the difficulty of entering the kingdom of God cannot depend 
upon the riches or the possessions as such, for also absolute poverty 
admits of being viewed as a state that brings along with it manifold 


* Tf it had been merely money as such which had kept him from entering the king- 
dom of God, the idea would be correct, that God might have set him free from it by a 
conflagration or something of that nature. But the only thing that would avail was his 
inward deliverance in soul from earthly possessions, and the God who made man’s naturo 
free, wishes also to have its free choice in favour of what is good. 


Martuew XIX. 25, 26. 113 


temptations. (See Matth. xiii, 22.) If understood merely of ex- 
ternal possessions, the similitude here chosen would evidently be too 
strong, for it denotes not so much the difficulty as the impossibility 
of the rich man, unless he previously becomes, in a spiritual sense, 
poor, entering into the kingdom of God.* It is the state of mind, 
therefore, in which possessions are held, which the Saviour repre- 
sents as being such a hindrance. Yet this is not to be viewed as con- 
fined merely to what is properly avarice, but as including also the 
so-called legitiémate appropriation of the good things of this world 
(comp. on Luke xvi. 1, seq.) which is prevalent and permitted in the 
world, and regarded as the greatest good fortune. In the kingdom 
of God, every individual is merely a steward (οἰκονόμος) of God, 
and therefore inwardly renounces all his own possessions, and con-. 
secrates them to God the only Lord. Hence the Saviour requires 
this inward renunciation as a condition of entering into the king- 
dom of God. For this reason, however, at the same time, the idea 
of rich acquires a wider extension; the beggar may be rich in 
desire and concupiscence, and the possessor of treasures may be 
poor (thus David is frequently in the Psalms called poor, as being 
πτωχὺς πνεύματι, poor in spirit, set free from all the ties of posses- 
sion and property, compare Rey. xxi. 24). He who is without money 
or goods may be “rich” in so-called good works, in knowledge, or 
art, or natural dispositions, if he appropriate such gifts to himself, 
and do not ascribe them to their Author.. Riches, however, what- 
ever form they take, invariably act in the same way, inasmuch as 
they attach man to the world, in which things created assume to be 
separate and independent: while in the kingdom of God this 
independence is cancelled, and all things ascribed to God. Where 
the former is maintained, therefore, this union of life with God can- 
not be realized. (Avoxodoc, means, primarily, difficult to satisfy, 
then in general dificult. It is the opposite of εὔκοπος, without 
trouble, easy. The figure of κάμηλος, which is not to be confounded 
with κάμιλος, a rope, a ship’s cable, is a common one in the East. 
Instead of the camel the elephant is also sometimes mentioned 
[compare Lightfoot and Schéttgen on the passage]. Instead of 
τρύπημα Mark and Luke have τρυμαλιά from τρύμη, a hole, an 
opening.) 

Ver, 25, 26.—It is evident that the disciples understood the dis- 
course of our Lord in this more extended application. Their 
astonishment, and the thought, who then can be saved ? (τίς dpa 
δύναται σωθῆναι), shew plainly that they regard every man in his 


* At the same time, however, it should not be denied that a fulness of earthly bless- 
ing carries with it pre-eminently the temptation to attach one’s self to the world. In all 
cases, however, the fetter which peculiarly binds a man, must be sought for within him, 
and not in things external. 


Vout. IL—8 


114 Matruew XIX. 27. 


natural state as a πλούσιος, rich, because of his inward attachment 
to earthly things. Were we to refer the question merely to those 
who are outwardly rich, it would obviously lose all its force. Ver. 
27 also shews that the disciples (although in a literal sense they 
were not rich) had recognized the giving up of all their property as a 
duty necessarily binding on them, whence we see that they under- 
stood the idea in a spiritual sense. Accordingly, the question 
“ Who then can be saved ?” expresses a deep feeling of man’s 
strong attachment to the creature, from which, of himself and by 
himself, he cannot set himself free (in the same way as at Rom. 
vii. 24), and for this very reason requires a deliverer. The exercise 
of this saving power on the part of God is referred to at ver. 26. 
Here our Lord recognizes the inability on the part of man (because 
the weakness of the flesh (ἀσθένεια τῆς σαρκός) makes it impossible for 
him to fulfil the commandment to love God above all, Rom. viii. 3), 
but refers to the aid of the Almighty. This is to be considered, 
however, not as a thing manifesting itself without a man, but as 
that which operates within him, for which reason the πώντα δυνατὰ 
παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, all things are possible with God, is equivalent to the 
πάντα δυνατὰ πιστεύοντι, all things are possible to him that believeth 
(comp. Mark ix. 23). 

Ver. 27.—The new question of Peter appears at first sight not 
to agree with what precedes it. It must seem strange that after 
the disciples had just asked Who then can be saved ? they should 
now consider the difficulty to have been perfectly overcome in their 
own case. One would be tempted to conclude that Matthew had 
inserted here what was spoken at another time, did not Mark and 
Luke agree with him, and warrant our believing that we have here 
the original connexion. This connexion also admits of being per- 
fectly defended, if we view the remark of Peter here (who again 
speaks as the representative of all the apostles) as the expression of 
his uncertainty as to whether they had in reality satisfied these dif- 
ficult demands of the kingdom, Feeling that much yet remained 
within him of attachment to the creature, Peter mentions one act 
of his life similar to that which Christ had required of the young 
man. But whether this was enough, he, in the exercise of genuine 
repentance, remained uncertain. The words τί ἡμῖν ἔσται ; what 
shall beto us ? therefore are not to be understood as referring toa re- 
ward, for Peter must otherwise be held to have been in a state of mind 
in which ver. 25 would be altogether inapplicable to him, and the an- 
swer of Jesus also, ver. 28-30, would be transformed into a reproof. 
Rather must we refer the words to the disciples’ state of mind in 
such a way that their meaning shall be, “ what shall fall to our lot, 
what shall befal or happen to us ; wilt thou judge of us as of the 
young man, or does such a decisive act still remain to be done by 


MartHew XIX, 28. 115 


_us 2” Thisstands most appropriately connected with what follows, 
inasmuch as Jesus, by strong grounds of comfort removes that un- 
certainty of the disciples which proceeded from their tender faith- 
fulness, and assures them of this that they are his. 

Ver. 28.—Matthew gives in the most complete form those ideas 
through which Jesus imparts this comfort to his disciples, and in 
such a way that they closely correspond with the context. For, the 
Saviour speaks first of the special prerogatives bestowed upon the 
disciples as the first representatives of the kingdom of God in this 
new order of things, and then (ver. 29) passes over to all those who, 
for the sake of the kingdom, have given up every thing upon earth. 
Matthew alone has the first verse, in which the special prerogatives 
of the disciples are spoken of. We might believe that Luke had 
omitted the words because he considered them less intelligible to 
his heathen readers, as referring to views which were peculiarly Jew- 
ish, if he had not also given them at xxii. 28, seqq. in another con- 
nexion, but in such a way that we cannot conceive of their having 
been transferred from Luke into Matthew. The idea has its own 
peculiar place in both Evangelists. As regards the idea itself, ex- 
pressed in ver. 28, it is in the first place remarkable that the Sa- 
viour, without any special occasion, should have, of his own free 
movement, unfolded it to the disciples, and in this way should 
obviously have favoured their earthly prejudices concerning the Mes- 
siah, contrary to his purpose, if he meant to deny the reality of their 
expectations. This is the more surprising, as the connexion here does 
not make this declaration at all necessary, for any kind of laudatory 
acknowledgment of the disciples’ faithful strivings would have been 
enough for them. Even the theory of accommodation, therefore, is 
here reduced to difficulties, and it is obvious that those act more 
simply who attribute the idea here expressed to Jesus himself, and 
recognize him as participating in it.* This opinion we must feel all 
the more inclined to adopt, inasmuch as in this passage there is ex- 
pressed nothing more than is found everywhere stated in the gos- 
pels and apostolic writings. The παλιγγενεσία, regeneration, denotes 
merely the coming forth of the kingdom from its concealed and 
purely spiritual, into an external form, or the spiritualizing of 
the outer world from within (comp. the remarks on this at 
Matth. viii, 11 ; Luke xvii. 20). The selection of the expression 
παλιγγενεσία, regeneration, to denote this has its origin in a noble 
parallel between the whole and the individual. In the passage 
Titus iii. 5, baptism (λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας) appears as the means 
which brings about the new birth of the individual. This moral 
process in the individual is transferred to the whole body, which, 


* The recent attempts to explain the passage as ironical, shew how difficult it is ifthe 
simple meaning of the words be given up. Comp. Fleck de regno divino, p. 436, seq. 


116 MattHew XIX. 28. 


worn out by sin, requires and looks forward to restoration not less 
than does the individual. This restoration naturally has its begin- 
ning in the domain of conscious spirits, but as, in the progressive 
advancement of the individual, it goes forward from the spirit to 
the final glorifying of the body (comp. Rom. viii. 11), so also the 
perfecting power of the Spirit gradually pervades the outward 
visible world taken as a whole. Without distinguishing the sepa- 
rate stages, the term παλιγγενεσία comprehends the whole in one 
general expression. Thus, as the Saviour’s resurrection is pri- 
marily a type prefiguring the final glorifying of our bodily organism, 
so is the resurrection of the flesh generally a type of the materia] 
world in its glorified condition, which is accurately described by 
Paul (Rom. viii. 18, seqq.), in strictly didactic discourse, but is in 
the New Testament taken for granted in the discourses of Jesus, 
and is at last, in Revelation, portrayed as present. Man, therefore, 
as a Microcosm, appears as an emblem prefiguring every stage of 
development in the Macrocosm, and as the development of indi- 
vidual life is consummated only in the glorifying of the body, even so 
the glorifying agency of the Spirit reaches its climax only in per- 
vading the material world. This rich idea the Saviour sets before 
his disciples, and with reference to their sacrificing of the present 
world, points them forward to the future into which they had already, 
in a spiritual sense, entered, by the giving up of their possessions, 
but into which they would yet visibly enter at his final manifes- 
tation. In this state of things, the Saviour appears as the king, in- 
asmuch as the kingdom therein realized is the whole sphere of life 
pervaded and ruled over by the Spirit and influence of Jesus. (Ka- 
θίζειν ἐπὶ θρόνου, sitting on a throne, is to be viewed as a symbolic 
expression for dominion. In the words θρόνος δόξης, throne of glory, 
we may trace—inasmuch as the thing spoken of is the manifesta- 
tion of what is concealed [comp. Rom. viii. 18]—that outward dis- 
play of light and glory [analogous to the Hebrew 1422] which en- 
compasses every appearance of divinity. In the αἰὼν οὗτος, the δόξα 
τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is in its nature entirely spiritual.) 

Now, the fact that in this sovereign power of our Lord (7. e. a 
decisive spiritual power which authoritatively imposes terms—see 
in regard to it on Matth. xx. 20), believers are set forth as partak- 
ing, is merely the general idea of the Christian system, according 
to which nothing which exists in the Saviour lies enviously shut up 
in him, but just as in him Divine love appears as the perfect com- 
munication of itself, so the Redeemer imparts himself with the 
whole fulness of his gifts to his church as his body. Hence, as his 
people share his sufferings, so also his glory. (Rom. viii. 17, συμπάσ- 
xouev ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν ; comp. also 2 Tim. 11. 20.) Naturally, 
therefore, this applies even to his disciples generally, but it has a 


MarrHew XIX. 29. 117 


more special reference to the apostles. As the representatives of 
the twelve tribes (comp. Matth. x. 2), they received most directly 
and purely into their souls that spiritual element flowing forth into 
humanity (and primarily among the people of Israel), lich Jesus 
brought down to the earth, in such a manner that they themselves 
became in turn gushing fountains of eternal life (John iv, 14), with 
which they rendered a world fruitful. Hence they most completely 
partook of the character of Jesus, as King, and that is the sense 
of the symbolical expression, that they were to sit on twelve thrones 
(as subordinate rulers) surrounding the throne of the Lord. (Comp. 
on Rev. iv. 4; xxi. 14.) Finally, there is also ascribed to the 
apostles, as the representatives of the church generally, κρίνειν, 
judging (a special manifestation of the general expression dominion). 
This also is at 1 Cor. vi. 2 ascribed to the whole church as such, in- 
asmuch as through the Spirit of the Lord which pervades it, there 
is given to it at the same time the power of discernment in its own 
real nature, and so of separating and sifting. As the church already 
uses this gift of the Spirit in the office of the keys (comp. on Matth. 
xvi. 19), so, upon beingitself made perfect at its final manifestation, 
does it exercise this gift in a perfect sense in the same office. Thus 
we must say, that at the foundation of the whole of this peculiar 
train of thought, there lie Jewish ideas as to the course of the world’s 
development, and the place which the twelve tribes hold in regard 
to mankind ; views, however, which at the same time perfectly cor- 
respond to the arrangements of eternal wisdom, and are supported 
by the mode in which these things are everywhere conceived and 
set forth in Scripture. Only we must be careful that the gross and 
material conception of these ideas by high and low among the Jew- 
ish people, be not confounded with the ideas themselves**—ideas 
which obviously penetrate with equal depth and power into the 
whole world of thought. 

Ver. 29.—From the special, the Saviour passes over to the gen- 
eral, and states that not merely they (the apostles), but every one 
who renounces the world, will receive his μισθός, reward, (Matth. v. 
12). On the idea of Christian self-denial, and of self-denial for the 
sake of Jesus (in which voy alone it becomes Christian), see more 
particularly at Matth, x. 37, seqq. (Instead of ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματός 

* This was the mistake of Hase (Life of Jesus, 2d edit. p. 84, seqq.) He finds in this 
an indication that Jesus, during the earlier period of his ministry, had participated in the 
political views which generally prevailed among the Jews regarding the Messiah and his 
kingdom. This, however, by no means follows from the passage before us, and just as 
little from the immediately succeeding statement, that they were to receive again houses 
and lands an hundred fold. The rule of the apostles is no political one, but purely spir- 
itual; the receiving of earthly blessings is not external, but the possession of them in 
the spirit of Christian love, inasmuch as the very peculiarity of the kingdom of God con- 


sists in the abolition of all exclusive possessions on the part of the individual], and the 
giving of the whole to each. 


118 MattHew XIX. 30. 


μου, Matth. has ἐμοῦ. "Ovowa —¥, name, is put for the person him- 
self in his proper individuality. Luke has ἕνεκεν τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, for the sake of the kingdom of God, as Mark has also added 
ἔνεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, for the sake of the Gospel, which in so far is 
identical with ἐμοῦ, of me, as in the person of the Saviour, the gos- 
pel and the kingdom are represented in a living form, and as it is 
only by the power which proceeds from his person that the king- 
dom is founded apart from or without him.) The idea of recom- 
pense briefly alluded to by Matthew, Mark gives in a very enlarged 
form—an uncommon circumstance with him ; for even when he gives 
the substance of Christ’s discourses, he usually abridges them. 
Luke has already embodied in the discourse the contrast between 
the present time (καιρὸς οὗτος), and the coming age (αἰὼν ἐρχόμενος); 
Mark, however, enumerates all the individual details of the recom- 
pense. We may call this enumeration a commentary on 1 Tim. 
iv. 8. Even in this present life on earth true piety bears within 
itself its own reward. Especially the giving up of all one’s own pos- 
sessions to the general community is but the reacquisition of the 
whole for the individual. (So that in this sense also it is true “ all 
things are yours,” 1 Cor, ili, 21, 22.) In the church of God, asa 
kingdom which is in the course of gradual development, the be- 
liever, through true heart-fellowship and brotherly communion, re- 
ceives back what he lost through the sin which is in that world 
from which he judicially separated himself (1 Cor. i. 31)—receives 
it indeed in a higher measure (ἑκατονταπλασίονα, Luke has πολλα- 
πλασίονα). (Comp. as to αἰὼν οὗτος and ἐρχόμενος on Matth. xii. 31.) 
The addition μετὰ διωγμῶν, with persecutions, by Mark is peculiar 
to him alone. (The reading διωγμόν is assuredly an alteration made 
to remove the difficulty.) Certainly, therefore, the simplest view 
which it remains for us to take of these words, is to regard them as 
added to the discourse, in order to represent the joys of the pres- 
ent state even in this form of brotherly Christian love, as in many 
ways troubled and disturbed, and in this way to set forth the ever- 
lasting lifeas the untroubled and peaceful state of being. For, the 
church in which the individual believer already receives back even 
outwardly what he gave up, is never on earth free from persecution, 
until the αἰὼν μέλλων, future age comes, and with it the kingdom, 
Thus the whole statement, being transferred to the present state of 
things as existing in the world, has no reference whatever to the 
hopes set before us in the Apocalypse. 

Ver, 30.—Matthew and Mark conclude the conversation with a 
well-known axiom, which in Matthew forms the transition to the 
following parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard. Apart from 
this parable, which (xx. 16) again concludes with the same axiom, 
the words standing at the close of the conversation, as Mark gives 


MatrHew XX. 1, 2. 119 


them contain something very obscure, so that here again Matthew 
appears the more exact narrator of the discourses of Jesus. It is 
striking to mark the different forms in which the apothegm appears 
at the commencement and close of the parable. It runs, 


Matth. xix. 30, and Matth. xx. 16. 
Mark x. 31. 
πολλοὶ ἔσονται πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι, ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι, Kat οἱ 
καὶ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι. πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι. 


The first form (Matth. xix. 30) is also analogous to the expression 
at Luke xiii. 30, εἰσὲν ἔσχατοι, of ἔσονται πρῶτοι " καὶ εἰσὶ πρῶτοϊ͵ οἵ ἔσον- 
ται ἔσχατοι. For the distinction of the thought in the two cases is 
this : according to the first form of the apothegm there are some in 
both the classes (the πρῶτοι and the ἔσχατοι) who are represented as 
passing from the one to the other. According to the second form, 
however, all (the article οἱ ἔσχατοι, οἱ πρῶτοι is not to be overlooked) Ὁ 
are set forth as belonging to the class opposite theirown. On closer 
examination, however, this difference of form in the apothegm is 
found to be only in appearance, inasmuch as at Matth. xx. 16, the 
article does not refer to the πρῶτοι and ἔσχατοι as such, but to the 
πολλοί, who are described (xix. 30) as existing among them. And 
in this very thing the connexion of the passage is sufficiently indi- 
cated, for Matth. xx. 20, seqq. sufficiently shews in what way the 
passage, Matth. xix, 28, might be understood, by the disciples, in- 
asmuch as the old man in them belonging to the “world” was by 
no means entirely destroyed, and they therefore interpreted the 
privileges and prerogatives after a carnal manner. Tor this reason 
the Saviour brings forward the circumstance, that along with them 
(the πρῶτοι), others called at a later period (ἔσχατοι) would receive 
an equal reward, and by this reference warns them against feelings 
of envy and self-seeking. We are not to think of Judas or other 
(still remoter) apostates. Since the following parable does not re- 
present the first labourers as unfaithful, for which reason they re- 
ceived their full reward. 

Matth, xx. 1, 2—The immediate object of the following para- 
ble,* therefore, as the connexion shews, is unquestionably this, that 
the apostles might be taught how their earlier calling of itself con- 
ferred on them no peculiar prerogative, and how those faithful 
labourers in the kingdom of God who were called at a later period, 
might be placed on an equal footing with them according to the 
free and unconditional award of Divine grace. These doctrinal nar- 
ratives of Jesus, however, are like many-sided precious stones, cut 


* On Matth. xx. i. seq., compare the treatise by Wilke in Winer’s journal. fir wise 
sensch. Theol. Sulzbach, 1829. Parti. p. 71-109. 


120 MatrHew XX. 3-7. 


so as to cast their lustre in more than one direction.* As we already 
remarked that at Luke xiii. 30, the apothegm with which our para- 
ble begins and ends, refers to the connexion subsisting between the 
Jews and heathen, so this parable may in like manner denote the 
relationship in which the heathen, as being called at a later period 
into the kingdom of God, stood to the Jews as the first called. 
And although primarily it refers to the teachers, it is true also in 
regard to every member of the church, and is universally applicable 
wheresoever an earlier call in the days of youth co-exists along with 
the calling of others at the latest period of life. But while it ap- 
plies to those who live contemporaneously in the kingdom of God, 
it refers no less to those who live at successive periods in the history 
of the church, inasmuch as the earliest years of the church’s 
development involved the greatest hardships, owing to the fiercer 
hostility of the world, and subsequent generations consequently 
enjoy a relief through the toils of their predecessors, 

God is here to be considered as the householder (οἰκοδεσπότης), 
inasmuch as at ver. 8 the steward (ἐπίτροπος), by whom the distri- 
bution of the wages is performed, symbolizes Christ. The vineyard 
(ἀμπελών =b72), however, is viewed (as at Isa, v. 1) as the emblem 
of that spiritual kingdom which the Lord of heaven founds on 
earth, and causes to be cultivated by his servants.; The labourers 
(ἐργάται), therefore, are the pastors and bishops of the church of God, 
all those to whom a spiritual office is intrusted, and the souls of 
men are the vineyard on which their labours are to be expended. 
True, the reference to the pastors is not to be understood of the 
outward office-bearers of the church, but of the inward call to 
spiritual labours ; and in so far as this call is not to be regarded 
as wanting in the case of any living member of the church, the 
parable has also its general application to all believers. Only the 
wages are not to be understood as denoting salvation (for nothing 
is said here of the difference between being saved and lost), but as 
referring to a special reward of grace, to various positions assigned in 
the kingdom of God in allusion to xix. 28 ; xx. 20. 

Ver. 3-7.—The idea of an agreement (συμφωνεῖν) with those first 
called in regard to the hire, as compared with the independent 
declaration on the part of the Lord as to the reward to be given 
to those who were afterwards called, indicates in the συμφωνεῖν 
a reciprocal agreement, and consequently a title, as it were, in 
the one class of labourers to make demands and not in the other 


* Compare the commentary on Matth. xi. 19. 

+ The frequent comparison of the kingdom of God to a vineyard (Matth. xxi. 33, 
seq.), has perhaps a deeper foundation in the fact that the Saviour, according to his pro- 
found views of nature, traced in wine and in the vine the fittest analogies in the whole 
external world to express the most spiritual relations. (Comp. on John xy. 1, seq.) 


MatTTHew XX. 8-12. 121 


In this way those first called certainly seem in one point of view 
to be favoured, but not in another, for they are subsequently 
dealt with according to the strict letter of the law, while the others 
receive according to the superabounding measure of love. This agrees 
remarkably well with the reference to the heathen and the Jews ; 
and we might almost suppose that conversations had taken place 
among the disciples, which caused the parable to be constructed in 
this way. Perhaps, in contrast with others of the disciples (who 
were descended from the heathen), they had proudly appealed to 
their Jewish descent, and laid claim to that which was promised 
(Matth. xix. 28), not as the gift of grace, but as deserved. The 
συμφωνεῖν, agreement, applies then strikingly to those covenants into 
which God entered with his people, in which (according to the 
Divine condescension) are implied mutual engagements and promises. 
The heathen, on the contrary, were called, without any covenant, 
into the kingdom of God. Not so much from need, as from pity 
for the idle, the faithful master of the house from time to time (at 
marked periods of great advancement in the kingdom of God) called 
new labourers into his vineyard, and they confided with simple trust 
in the faithfulness of the Lord. Thus, though apparently at a dis- 
advantage, their childlike faith placed them with such a Lord really 
at anadvantage. In regard to the apostles this is most markedly 
exhibited in the calling of Paul. The Lord took him from his course 
of busy idleness, and called him into the vineyard where the Twelve 
were already at work, and so he laboured more than they all (1 Cor, 
xv. 10). The parable lays especial stress (comp. vers. 6, 7, with 
12) on those who were called at the eleventh hour. Primarily the 
intention of this may have been merely to give point to the contrast 
between the one howr and the whole day. Especial interest attaches 
to this point of time, as well in regard to the individual Christian, 
in which case it refers to late conversion, as also to the whole church, 
in which case it applies to those who are called in the latter days, 
Ver. 8-12.—This portion of the parable contains the greatest 
difficulties. In the first place, a question arises as to the view which 
we are to take of the ὀψίας γενομένης, evening coming. As the 
closing period of the day (viewed as the season of labour), the even- 
ing brings the final decision, ‘Thus in the case of the individual, 
the evening is to be understocd as denoting death, in the case of 
the church, as the last time (καιρὸς ἔσχατος), or the coming in of the 
kingdom. These things, which to us seem so wide apart, were re- 
garded by the apostles as happening simultaneously, inasmuch as 
they viewed the coming of Christ as an event about to take place 
immediately, and our Lord himself did not speak of it in any other 
way (comp, on Matth, xxiv). In the second place, the circumstance 
that a denarius was distributed alike to all, must not be explained 


122 MatrHew XX. 13-16. 


as implying a denial that there are degrees of future glory, for other 
parables, and especially that of the talents, at Matth. xxv. 14, seq. 
expressly teach this doctrine. Rather does the equal denarius sim- 
ply denote the equality of all, in so far as they are partakers of the 
same blessedness, which completely satisfies the desires of every 
individual, although the capacities of these separate individuals 
may be very different. Jn the last place, however, the most obscure 
point of all seems to be the possibility of a murmuring (γογγύζειν) 
among the first called (πρῶτοι). Should a comparison be made 
between this and Luke xv. 25, sey., we must remark that in that 
case the elder son is represented as occupying exclusively the stand- 
ing-point of the law ; but here the πρῶτοι, first, appear as labourers 
(and faithful labourers, for they receive their denarius) in the king- 
dom of God. Besides, as the distribution of the wages takes place 
in the evening (that is, after their training im holiness was com- 
plete), it is impossible to conceive that there still existed in these 
first called a mixture of the old and the new. We must therefore 
say that this parabolic representation does not mean to assume that 
there is anything analogous to this murmuring in the real spiritual 
relationships which it sets forth, but is mtended to give instruction 
by contrast, so that the sense of the whole would be this: inasmuch 
as such murmuring, as the parable shews, on the part of the envious 
labourer against his comrades, is a thing in itself wholly inconceivable 
amidst the relationships of heaven (inasmuch as he in whom it was 
found would by that very circumstance shew himself to be living 
beyond the pale of the kingdom of love), therefore all labourers in 
the Lord’s vineyard must betimes give up every claim of their own, 
and trust themselves simply to the mercy of God. In such a lowly 
position they would also experience compassion towards their 
brethren (Καύσων, glowing heat during the day, comp. Luke xii. ὅδ). 

Ver. 13-15.—The closing verses set forth the dealing of the free 
grace of God, which can be limited by no peculiar privileges of the 
creature. Righteousness and love are its everlasting forms of 
manifestation, and that freely manifested love of God which 
loves without finding and demanding merit. But to love others 
with the postponement of our own claims, is the highest act of 
piety—the real giving up of all that is our own, Matth, xix. 27. 
(The expression ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός corresponds to the Hebrew 58 4:2 
[comp. on Mark vii. 22], by which we are to understand the evil 
eye which works destruction.) 

Ver. 16.—In the concluding words our Lord briefly points back 
to the apothegm (xix. 30). Thus, according to this parable, it is as 
though he had said the first called (who are described above) stand 
in a position less favourable than those called at a later period, 

* See editor's note at ch. xxv. 31-46.—[K. 


, 


Matruew XX. 17 123 


With this one apothegm, however, there is conjoined another, which, 
at xxii. 14, concludes the parable of the king’s marriage-feast. 
There it refers to the entire failure of some in reference to their 
call; here it is applied ina modified sense ; for, even aithough 
those called at the eleventh hour are to be conceived of as pre-emi- 
nently diligent, yet the parable gives not the slightest hint that 
those first invited were less assiduous. Rather did they receive their 
reward along with the others. Thecontrast between κλητοί, called, and 
ἐκλεκτοί, chosen, cannot here be referred to the invitation to enter 
God’s kingdom, and the actual coming and arraying of one’s self 
for it (as at xxii. 14), but merely to the different relations of be- 
lievers themselves to the kingdom of God, the distribution and 
bestowal of which depends upon the free grace of God. The ἐκλεκτοί 
chosen, therefore, in this case, are the ἔσχατοι, last, the κλητοί, called. 
are all the labourers, including also the jirst. The called, however, 
labour in a constrained position for the sake of reward ; the chosen 
in a freer relation from delight and love. In so far as this more 
favoured position and the love which they cherish is not their own 
work, but the work of grace within them, in so far must it be re- 
ferred to an ἐμλογή, choice, selection, which, however, is not to be 
regarded as a thing limited on the part of that love which imparts 
itself to all, but only as repressed by the narrowness of men’s own 
hearts. Finally, it seems very doubtful whether the apothegm has 
in this passage, its original connexion. It has at least in Matth. 
xxii. 14, a much more definite relation to the context ; at which 
passage see our more lengthened remarks. 


§ 8. Or Humuiry. 
(Matth. xx. 17-28; Mark x. 32-45; Luke xviii, 31-33.) 


Referring back to what was said on Matth, xix. 1, we merely 
observe here that the mention made of the approaching sufter- 
ings of Jesus Christ, stands again in Matthew’s context, in close 
connexion with the succeeding narrative. Ver. 17-19 viewed as 
isolated, are as it were lost, but in connexion with what follows 
they at once acquire a legitimate place and relation to the whole 
narrative. They shew in the person of the Saviour himself how the 
character of self-denying humility is an indispensable requisite for 
the true disciple of Jesus, and in the discourse of Jesus which fol- 
lows the account of the earthly claims of the children of Zebedee, 
everything bears equally on the proof of this truth, and for this 
reason the discourse concludes (ver. 28) with the same thought which 
introduces (ver. 18, 19), the passage before us. Thus our Lord’s 
sufferings are mentioned merely for the purpose of shewing the dis- 


124 MatrHew XX. 17-21. 


ciples that the like sufferings were awaiting them. In the context 
of Luke, indeed, the mention of the sufferings of Jesus stands more 
isolated as a fact which occurred in the course of his last journey 
(comp. Luke ix. 51). But looking at the general arrangement of 
the subject-matter in his account of the journey, this very form of 
recording it is the appropriate one. Luke gives in it, in fact, the 
events as they successively happened, without grouping under gen- 
eral points of view what belonged together. 

Ver. 17-19.—Matthew remarks, as a point of external interest, 
that our Lord by the way (as they were approaching Jerusalem) had 
taken his Twelve apart (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν) and foretold to them what 
awaited him at Jerusalem. Mark (x. 32) adds this trait, that the 
disciples had with fear and astonishment (ἐθαμβοῦντο καὶ ἀκολουθοῦντες 
ἐφοβοῦντο) seen the Saviour proceed towards Jerusalem, the seat of 
his fiercest enemies (comp. John xi. 16). As respects, finally, the 
prophecy itself regarding the sufferings and resurrection of Jesus, 
the remarks already made at Matth. xvi, 21 may be consulted. The 
Christian mind can have no interest in tracing to the words of Christ 
himself every separate detail in the traits which are here given of | 
our Lord’s sufferings as still future. The great point with which, 
above all, we have to do, is the contrast between the death and re- 
surrection. But the external evidence favours the conclusion that 
even these individual traits (such as the ἐμπαῖξαι, μαστιγῶσαι) are 
derived from Christ’s own words ; for the agreement of the three 
narratives is here so close as to compel us to the assumption of exact 
reports; vague tradition would have called forth greater differences. 
Besides, the Old Testament representations (especially Ps, xxii. ; 
Isa. 1. 6, lili. ; Hos. vi. 2) already contain all these traits, and, for 
this reason, their being brought forward before the event is suffi- 
ciently authorized (1 Cor. xv. 3, 4). Luke remarks (xvii, 34) 
that on this occasion also (comp. on Matth. xvi, 22) the disciples 
were again unable to comprehend the words of Jesus, 7. e., they felt 
themselves incapable of conceiving of such contrasts being united 
in the life of a single person, the highest glory (in miracles never 
equalled) with the deepest humiliation, and this again combined 
with the highest exaltation in his resurrection. ΤῸ this was added 
the fact, that the idea of a suffering Messiah, although it did exist 
among the Jewish people, was by no means prominent, and conse- 
quently everything connected with it which Jesus uttered, found 
only a weak response within their circle of opinions. 

Ver. 20, 21.—-Immediately after these words of Christ, the 
Evangelist subjoins the account of the request made by the children 
of Zebedee, who (according to Matthew), along with their mother 
(Salome by name, comp. Mark xv. 40 with Matth. xxvii. 56), asked 
the Saviour for the highest places of honour in his Messianic king- 


MartrnHew XX. 22, 23, 125 


dom. This declaration then causes Jesus to explain the relation 
which subsists between the reigning and the menial character of the 
disciples of Jesus Christ—the whole occurrence, however, is invested 
with much obscurity. In the first place, it is a striking thing to 
find the humble-minded John acting a part, which seems to be 
more in keeping with the character of Peter. Probably, however, 
the ambitious request proceeded from the mother, who saw herself 
reflected in the exalted fortune of her sons. In the case of the two 
disciples, the whole may have taken a purer form, inasmuch as it is 
possible that the leading motive which swayed their minds in mak- 
ing the request may have been this, that they might enjoy in time 
to come the same privilege of nearness to the Lord, which we 
know (at least in the case of John) to have been the sweetest 
comfort of their lives. (Compare the introduction to John, § 1.) 
Again the language “one at thy right hand, and one at thy left” 
(εἷς ἐκ δεξιῶν, εἷς ἐξ εὐωνύμων), strikes us with surprise, and half 
tempts us to suppose that it refers to some special idea involved in 
the Jewish conceptions of the Messiah, of which, however, there is 
not found the slightest trace.* Rather does the expression denote 
merely (according to the general analogy which is everywhere to be 
met with, that with great men and princes he whom they honour 
sits next them) the highest prerogatives, and the influence founded 
on them. Without doubt the vain mother had formed the opinion, 
and by means of it had incited her sons, that the inauguration of 
the Messianic kingdom was about immediately to take place (Luke 
xix. 11). Jesus they considered as the Sovereign and possessor of 
that kingdom, and, therefore, falling at his feet, they requested of 
him the highest places of honour. 

Ver, 22, 23.—The most difficult point of all, however, is the cir- 
cumstance that this enquiry, which seems to proceed from a ma- 
terialistic view of what was said at Matth. xix. 28, is not rejected 
by our Lord. For at first the Saviour merely brings forward the 
difficulties which had to be overcome before they could attain such 
places of honour ; and when the disciples, with child-like simplicity, 
declared themselves willing to encounter all conflicts, our Lord does 
not deny that, as a general truth, there were such places of honour 
to be had, nor that these places were accessible to them, but he 
merely declares that the Messiah cannot bestow them; that it is 
God who gives them to those for whom it is prepared (οἷς ἡτοίμασται). 
From the turn thus given to the discourse, it is true, one may con- 


* Wetstein ad. loc. cites from the Midrasch Tehillim, the passage, futurum est, ut Deus 
summe benedictus faciat regem Messiam sedere ad dextram suam et Abrahamum ad 
sinistram suam. Here, however, the Messiah appears as Himself sitting on the right 
hand of God, but nothing occurs in the passage respecting two different persons who are 
to sit at the right and left of the Messiah. 


126 MatTHew XX, 22, 29, 


clude with some probability that the Saviour meant to intimate 
that these places of honour were not intended for them, but the sur- 
prising thing is, that this was not declared to them in the most posi- 
tive manner ; that they were not told that there did not exist any 
such places of honour in the kingdom of God ; and farther, that the 
opinion seems to be favoured that such places really existed. To 
this it must be added, that in what immediately follows, Jesus 
speaks of the great and the jirst in the kingdom, as at Matth. v. 19. 
But as the Saviour at the same,time, ver. 22, says to the disciples 
“Ye know not what ye ask” (οὐκ οἴδατε τί αἰτεῖσθε), he evidently 
blames the position they had assumed. This surprising combination 
of censure and of remarks coinciding with the ideas of the disciples, 
finds its solution in what follows (v. 24-27). Here we have merely 
to speak of the figures under which the Saviour sets forth the con- 
flict by which the attainment of glory in the kingdom of God must 
be preceded. In regard to this struggle as applicable to himself 
personally, our Lord had spoken immediately before. ἃ bright 
contrast to this conflict is presented by tlf joyful view of the 
coming glory. ‘‘The flesh would always be glorified before it is 
crucified ; it would rather be exalted before it is humbled,” says 
Luther. Now, first, as regards the state of the text, the figure of 
baptism (βάπτισμα) in Matthew has without doubt been interpolated 
from Mark. For, Mark in this instance, again (as also ex. gr. ix. 
45, seq.), has given a fuller report of the discourse, without, how- 
ever, adding to it any ideas peculiar to himself ; his important ad- 
ditions belong almost entirely to a fuller statement of the facts 
(compare on the text of Matthew the N. T. by Griesbach-Schulz ad 
loc). The figure of the cup (ποτήριον ---- 85), which is common to 
both, denotes in the Old Testament already (Isa. li. 22), punish- 
ment, sufferings, and the fundamental idea is assuredly that of a 
cup of poison to be drunk.* In the New Testament (Matth. xxvi. 
42) the Saviour describes his sufferings as a bitter cup given him 
by the Father. The figurative expression βάπτισμα added by Mark 
(compare on Matth. iii. 11), involves at once the idea of a painful 
submersion (a dying in that which is old), and also of a joyful rising 
(a resurrection in that which is new), as Rom. vi. 3, seq. shews. 
Such a path of suffering, in order to his being made perfect (Heb. 
v. 8, 9), our Lord declared (Luke xii. 50) stood as yet before him- 
self. According to the living corporate union, however, which sub- 
sists between our Lord and his people, as they have part in the glory, 
so likewise in his sufferings, and only where these latter really take 


effect, can they look forward to the former (Rom. viii. 17, 2 Tim, 


* Perbaps it might also be referred to a bitter drink of healing medicine, in which 
case the figure would combine the idea of what was unpleasant with what was at the 
same time sa'utary. 


Matruew XX, 24, 25. 127 


ii. 11, 12). ‘To this connexion our Lord calls their attention, in 
order to awaken them to a sense of the magnitude of those condi- 
tions under which alone the glory of the kingdom can be attained. 
When the disciples, however, on being asked δύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ ποτή- 
ριον; can ye drink the cup ? reply δυνάμεθα, we can, it is by no 
means to be supposed that they misunderstood the words of Jesus, 
and took them in a good sense (ποτήριον as meaning the cup of joy 
-- βάπτισμα the washing out of the hand-bason of the king, according 
to Von Meyer’s view ad loc. The very form of the question can ye 
drink ? must at once render such a misunderstanding impossible. 
Undoubtedly they rather meant to express their determination to 
follow the Lord through all difficulties. Nor are we to consider 
this declaration as a thing wholly perverse and sinful ; Jesus ac- 
cepts it and draws from it further deductions; the heart of the 
disciples was really sincere, and they were in earnest in their in- 
tention to follow him ; they were only wanting in a correct insight 
into the greatness of the sin which still existed within them, as 
well as into the greatness of the struggle in which they were to be 
engaged. Their declaration “ We are able,” therefore, unquestion- 
ably expresses a strong feeling of self-righteousness, otherwise they 
would never in such a conflict have trusted in self. 

Ver. 24, 25.—The ten other disciples who probably were absent 
during the scene (ver. 20), were offended at the two brothers when 
they heard of their request, their envy being undoubtedly excited 
by the circumstance that James and John had wished to be exalted 
above them, For this reason, Jesus assembled them (the ten around 
him (προσκαλεσάμενος αὐτούς), and without uttering one word of 
direct reproof, spoke to them of exaltation in the kingdom of God, 
as compared with earthly elevation, in order to make them aware 
of the real nature of the former, and explained to them this char- 
acter as applicable to himself (whom they all acknowledged as the 
king of the “kingdom” they hoped for) in such a way that his dis- ὁ 
course (ver. 28) returns to the point from which (ver, 18) it started. 
According to this view, however, the following words appear to be 
not so much a rebuke addressed to the two, as a didactic discourse 
addressed to the ten. But, as was already remarked, the idea of a 
special exaltation and glory in the kingdom of God is not in the 
least condemned, but is acknowledged as correct. For, the com~ 
parison of the ἄρχοντες, rulers, and μεγάλοι, great, has positively no 
meaning, if it was intended that there should be no πρῶτοι, first, 
and μεγάλοι, great, in the kingdom of God. Their existence is ob- 
viously taken for granted by our Lord—only a contrast is drawn 
between the dominion and authority (κατακυριεύειν, κατεξουσιάζειν) 
exercised in the world (compounds with κατά have often a bad 
subordinate signification, for example κατατομή, Phil. iii. 2; κατα- 


128 Marruew XX. 24, 25. 


κυριεύειν occurs again at 1 Peter v. 8, in the same sense in 
which it does here; and it is only in appearance that it bears 
another meaning at Acts xix. 16, Κατεξονσιάζειν does not again 
occur in the New Testament), and the διάκονος and δοῦλος εἶναι, 
being a minister and servant, which prevails in the kingdom 
of God. From the parallel thus drawn, however, we’ can explain 
the obscurity which attaches to the connexion of the Redeemer’s 
whole discourse. Amidst the relations of the present state (αἰὼν 
οὗτος), dominion rests on physical force, and the advantage of 
it is found in the subjugation of others, and the service rendered 
by them. In the ‘‘ kingdom” all pre-eminence rests on love and 
truth, and love teaches us to serve others, not to procure service to 
ourselves. But inasmuch as love is the mightiest power, so that 
love which shews itself in its highest perfection as ministering and 
dying, overcomes everything, and in union with the Son of love, all 
those who open their heart to its influence rule in the power of 10. 
But, as the susceptibility to its influence varies in different indi- 
viduals, the ruling power naturally exists at the same time in dif- 
ferent degrees, which, however, are dependent on the call of the 
Father (οἷς ἡτοίμασται ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός), not on the arbitrary will of 
man. Thus the disciples were not in the wrong in assuming that 
there were steps and degrees of approximation to the Lord, and in 
the extent to which men were partakers of his living power ; but, 
on the contrary, that something of this kind must be supposed, is 
at once shewn by the relation in which Christ stood to his disciples 
onearth, inasmuch as the Seventy were further removed from him 
than the Twelve, and among these again three (Peter, John, and 
James) stood the nearest to him, while only John rested on his bosom. 
And precisely similar are the results of experience in regard to the 
different degrees of efficiency in the different members of the church. 
Thus an Augustine, for example, by the power of the truth, exer- 
cised a predominant influence over whole centuries, such as millions 
of believers never possessed. The mistake of the disciples consisted 
rather in confounding the character of earthly and Divine authority. 
The former, owing to the sinfulness of human nature, is combined 
with oppression and slavery ; the latter brings in its train a blessing 
for all who yield themselves to its influence. But, in order to be 
delivered from sinful self-will, which often knows how to assert its 
power even under the form of spiritual influence, man needs first to 
be thoroughly humbled, and to pass through that baptism of suffer- 
ing, in which the old man is wholly given over to death. The new 
man thence arising, who belongs to the kingdom of God, can in that 
case, according to the measure of his calling, have dominion, 7. 6. 
exercise spiritual influence, without falling into the danger of as- 
suming a worldly domination (κατακυριεύειν). The Saviour places 


MatrHew XX. 28. 129 


before his followers the pure image of such a holy, self-sacrificing, 
lowly ministering love for their imitation ; intimating that in it 
alone lies his royal might and power ; and that his kingdom was 
only to be built up in such a way that its members should bear 
within them the same love, and in the exercise of it should vanquish 
and gain over for that kingdom the hearts of men. 

Ver. 28.—In the remarkable verses* which conclude this con- 
versation, the Saviour represents himself, in the first place, as the 
pattern of his disciples, so that, according to the principle, “ the 
disciple is not above his Lord,” as laid down at Matth. x, 24, the 
διακονῆσαι, ministering, must form the character of all the sincere 
disciples of Jesus, but the διακονηθῆναι, being ministered to (accord- 
ing to ver. 25) must be dissociated from them as something belong- 
ing to the world. The Divine dominion is one which only gives, 
and never, like that of the world, one which demands. The idea 
which immediately followed this general sentiment, viz., “and 
to give his life a ransom for many,” (Kat δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὑτοῦ 
λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν), stands so connected with the preceding con-. 
text, that one may easily fail to find in it a statement of the dis- 
tinctive peculiarity of the death of Jesus, its atoning and vicari- 
ous nature. For, while, in the life of believers, there can be found 
something analogous to the οὐκ ἦλθε διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι, 
he came not to minister, but to be ministered to, this does not 
appear to be the case with the giving his life (ψυχὴν δοῦναι), if it 
be viewed as a vicarious death ; and since, in the parallel drawn 
between Christ and his people, not the slightest hint is given that 
the resemblance is confined to the former, and does not extend to 
the latter, one might be led to the erroneous conclusion, that we 
are to view the death of Jesus here merely as the climax of the min- 
istering, and consequently to say that the words merely mean that 
every believer, as a member of the kingdom must (just as Christ did) 
sacrifice his individual life to the general body. Besides, as the synop- 
tical gospels (with the exception of Matth. xxvi. 28) do not contain 
any other similar declaration in Christ’s own words, impartiality re- 
quires from us the confession, that this passage, taken by itself, can- 
not prove the doctrine of Christ’s vicarious death, especially as the 
same expressions here used to describeit, may denote any kind of death 
in the way of sacrifice. (Comp. Jos. ii. 14, Joseph. de Maccab. c. vi. 
Wetstein ad loc, has collected other passages from profane writers.) 
But if the doctrine be elsewhere proved (comp. on Rom. iii. 21, 
seq.) then the passage assuredly acquires a high significance, inas- 


* The Codex D has here also a long passage added, which is transcribed at some 
length from Luke xiv. 7, seqq., but which cannot in any case be considered as belonging 
to the text in Matthew. 


Vou. IL.—9 


130 Martuew XX. 28. 


much as it lays down, in the words of our Lord, the germ of the 
apostolic doctrine. For, the structure of the words is obviously. 
such, that the doctrine of our Lord’s vicarious death may be indi- 
cated in them. The single point that can be urged in opposition, 
is the idea above-mentioned, that the “ giving his life” is not at all 
different from the “ ministering,” and as surely as the latter is ap- 
pointed for all, so must the same view be taken of the former, which 
assuredly cannot be said of Christ’s atoning death.* To maintain 
that in the latter words something which peculiarly and exclusively 
refers to Christ is placed alongside of that which is applicable to 
others, in such a way that the passage must be translated, ‘‘ As the 
Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, so 
ought ye also willingly to serve ; but, besides, the Son of Man has 
given up his life as an atonement for many, which is altogether in- 
applicable to you,” such a supposition would have perhaps no claim 
to our assent. But the circumstance that Jesus himself rarely brings 
forward that which is specific in the nature of his own death (comp. 
neverthele:s on John i, 14; vi. 51; x. 115 xii. 24), arises from 
this, that any statement of it in a doctrinal form might easily have 
been misunderstood ; for, amidst the bulk of the people, the Old 
Testament notices of a suffering Messiah, though not certainly 
wholly misapprehended, were yet thrown very much into the back- 
ground, and the apostles, on the whole, shared in these views. 
(Compare Hengstenberg on the Suffering Messiah, in his Christology 
of the Old Test. p. 252, seq.) As it was not in general, therefore, 
the peculiar work of Christ to communicate dogmas, but rather to 
implant in men’s souls the element of a heavenly life, to impart to 
them a spirit of truth, from which all eternal verities were unceas- 
ingly to be developing themselves anew, so-he gradually and with 
wisdom led his disciples forward, in order that, after his atoning 
death, they might be enabled to receive such a spirit. Hence the 
entire form of his earlier ministry bears a legal colouring ; Jesus 
was as it were his own prophet, and led men gradually to himself, 
the heavenly Christ. Of what importance would abstract state- 
ments as to the death of the Purest Love have possibly been to 
those men who were as yet unable to perceive the very nature of 
such love ? Not until the death of that love itself had revealed to 
their hearts that glow of life which dwelt in him, did they under- 
stand that the death of the Lord from heaven could be nothing else 
than atoning, the death of the second Adam could be no other than 
vicarious. As regards, finally, the individual details of this impor- 
tant passage, we must in the first place view the expression “giving 
his life” (δοῦναι ψυχήν) as denoting, according to John x. 18, a free- 
will offering. The use of the term ψυχή here, however, is of imnore 
* Compare the passage 1 John iii. 16, to which the same thing exactly applies. 


MartHew XX. 28. 131 


tance, as distinct from πνεῦμα, spirit. For, although the meaning life 
is here applicable, yet that life is to be regarded as concentrated in 
the soul (ψυχή), and this (which is to be viewed in its connexion 
with the body and its blood) appears as the special object offered in 
the sacrifice (comp. on Luke xxiii. 46). The term λύτρον, ransom, 
as applicable to the ψυχή of Jesus, occurs only here ; it points to a 
bondage (δουλεία), which is in this way (by the giving up of the 
soul) to be discharged. Hence the term λύτρον implies the idea of 
what is precious (1 Peteri. 18,19), by which that of highest value, 
immortal human souls, for whose deliverance no earthly thing 
sufficeth, might be saved. In the ideas there lies a strong Oxymoron. 
The δοῦναι ψυχήν, on the part of the Saviour, lays the foundation 
for the λαμβάνειν or the σώζειν τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, (The word 
λύτρον, however, although the substantive occurs only here [at 1 
Tim, ii, 6, there is ἀντίλυτρον], lies at the foundation of all the 
various expressions used in Scripture for the atoning work of 
Christ. The term most commonly used by Paul is ἀπολύτρωσις ; 
the simple λύτρωσις, besides Luke 1. 68, 11. 38, occurs also at Heb. 
ix. 12; λυτρωτής only at Acts vil. 85; Avtpéw at Luke xxiv. 21; 
Titus ii, 14; 1 Peteri. 18.) The preposition ἀντί, instead of, for, 
here used, occurs, only in this passage, and at 1 Tim. ii. 6, in the 
word ἀντίλυτρον. That which most usually, and especially in the 
language of Paul, denotes the relation of Christ’s death to mankind, 
is the word ὑπέρ, on behalf of, for (uke xxii. 19, 20; Rom. v. 6, 
8; vill. 32; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 [here it is most obviously equivalent 
toidvrt| Titus i, 14; LVim, it, 6.5 1 Peterns 20 i 18. av: Ts) 
but περί, concerning, also occurs (Δ αὐ, xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24; 
Gal. i. 4; Rom. viii. 3), and even διά, on account of, (1 Cor. viii. 11.) 
It is undeniable that from the use of these prepositions nothing 
absolutely decisive can be deduced in support of the doctrine of a 
vicarious atonement, inasmuch as they may be translated 207 the 
benefit of, for the advantage of. On the supposition, however, that 
this doctrine is elsewhere proved, [particularly by the idea invoived 
in λύτρον and λύτρωσις] it is equally impossible not to see, that the 
prepositions which are used do not exclude this idea. Especially 
the most obvious and common sense of ἀντί, is over against 1. 6. 
in the case of valuation, instead of, instar (comp. Homer 1]. ix. 
116,117, ἀντένυ πολλῶν λαῶν ἐστὶν ἀνὴρ ὅντε Ζεὺς κῆρι φιλήσῃ., v. 6. One 
is instead of many, he outweighs them, replaces them), and for the 
use of ὑπέρ, as equivalent to ἀντί, comp, 2 Cor. v. 20, ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ 
mpeoBevouev.—F inally, as respects the use of πολλῶν in this passage, 
and which is found also at Matth. xxvi, 28, Mark xiv. 24 (while at 
1 Tim. ii. 6, there stands πάντων), the passage, Rom. v. 15, 18, 19, is 
particularly instructive, for both expressions are there interchanged. 
We may say, that while πάντων points to the Divine intention, 


132 MarrHew XX. 29-34, 


πολλῶν refers to the result. As respects his love, Christ died for all, 
although the power of his death, in point of fact, only falls to the 
lot of many (compare farther details at the passages referred to). 


§ 4. Tue Hearine or Two Bunn MEN IN JERICHO, 
(Matth. xx. 29-34; Mark x. 46-52; Luke xviii. 35-43.) 


The connexion of the narrative in this Evangelist, as given at 
Matth. xix. 1, seems here to be interrupted, but only to be again 
immediately resumed. It is only some purely historic notices which 
come between, in order to carry forward the thread of the narrative, 
and transfer the scene to Jerusalem, And since Luke also inserts 
the account of the following cure as occurring at the same period of 
time, we are bound to suppose that it stands here in its right chro- 
nological position. The incident, moreover, presents nothing at all 
peculiar, for which reason no farther remarks seem called for on the 
occurrence itself. Mark has in this instance also (x. 46, 49) pre- 
served his character for close attention to details, by adding cer- 
tain pictorial touches, and giving even the name of the blind man. 
Respecting the differences between the accounts in the various 
gospels, in that Matthew and Mark, contrary to the statement of 
Luke, transfer the cure to Christ's departure from the city ; while 
Mark and Luke, on the other hand, contrary to the statement of 
Matthew, mention only a single individual as cured, I may refer to 
the remarks offered in the Introduction, ὃ 8. Every attempt to re- 
concile the conflicting narratives, whether by supposing that there 
were two cures, one on his entering, and another on his leaving the 
city, or by assuming that only one man is mentioned, inasmuch as 
one spoke for both, carries with it something unhistorical. [?] But 
their very differences on such immaterial points shew the genuine 
historical character of the gospels, and so far from detracting from 
their character in a higher point of view, they exalt it. Their 
agreement in every little trait would have been the surest means of 
awakening suspicion. Farther, it is most probable that Mark, so 
scrupulously exact in such minor circumstances, gives, on the whole, 
the correct account, so that Luke rightly agrees with him in men- 
tioning one blind man. Only we must follow Luke in regard to the 
circumstance, that the occurrence took place when Christ was 
entering into Jericho. His minute accuracy in this part of the 
narrative, and the circumstance that there immediately (xix. 1. seq.) 
follows another incident also belonging to the entrance into the city, 
makes this view by far the most probable. 


Luxe XIX. 1-4. 133 


§ 5. Curist’s Visir To ZACCHEUS. 
(Luke xix. 1-10.) 


Here again do we find Luke sedulously advancing, and giving 
yet another incident from our Lord’s stay in Jericho, which stands 
closely connected with those relations which the Evangelist has 
mainly in view in this section of his gospel. Jesus turns aside in 
Jericho to the house of a publican despised by the Pharisees (comp. 
Luke xix. 5, 6), and this unexpected favour so seizes on the mind of 
the upright man, that an entire change is wrought on him. This 
abode of Christ with Zaccheus forms a contrast to His presence in 
the house of the Pharisee (Luke xiv. 1, seqq.), which remained un- 
blessed to him, because he was destitute of the disposition to receive 
the blessing, and in his pride did not believe that he was honoured 
by the visit of Jesus, but rather supposed himself to have rendered 
some great service to the Saviour. Zaccheus, on the other hand, in 
the feeling of his own misery, was deeply ashamed that the Holy 
One did not think it beneath Him to come under his roof. What 
the Pharisees, therefore, by their legal preaching and their strict ex- 
clusiveness, had been unable to do, is here seen effected by the 
power of grace, which condescends to the miserable. The visit to 
Zaccheus is an anti-Pharisaic demonstration exhibited in actual 
fact ; and as a fact it makes a deeper impression than abstract doc- 
trinal statements. 

Ver. 1, 2.—The city of Jericho lay near Jerusalem (at the dis- 
tance of 150 stadia), for which reason the entry into the capital is 
narrated directly at Matth. xxi. 1, seq. The city itself (tn?) is ex- 
tremely ancient. The Hebrews found it in existence when under 
Joshua they took possession of the land of Canaan. Its palms 
and balsam gardens made it famous, and brought it trade ; 
for this reason an ἀρχιτελώνης, chief-publican had his seat there. 
The name Ζακχαῖος occurs again at 2 Mace. x. 19, it corresponds to 
the Hebrew *=t, from 421, to be pure, and is frequently interchanged 
with sz (comp. Gesenius in Lex). 

Ver. 8, 4.—The desire of Zaccheus to see Jesus was, to be sure, 
apparently external, but that it had a deeper origin in his soul is 
proved by the following narrative. Zaccheus is in so far a most ap- 
propriate representative of an honest though outwardly manifested 
desire after the Saviour, which, as such, bears within itself a deeper 
germ, and according to the grace of the Lord which has awakened 
it, will yet find its full satisfaction. (Ἡλικία here means stature— 
size of body, comp. Matth. vi. 27.----Συκομορέα — συκάμινος, comp. 


134 Luxe XIX. 5-10, 


Luke xvii. 6. The MSS. vary τις in the form of the noun ; we 
find also συκομωρέαν, συκομωραίαν, ovKopopaiar.) 

Ver. 5, 6.—If Jesus addresses Zaccheus, and asks him for lodg- 
ing, it does not follow necessarily that we are to conclude that he 
had received reports or information which had made him acquainted 
with his character. ‘‘ Christ needed not that any should testify of 
a man, for he knew well what was in man” (John 11. 26). It is still 
possible certainly that our Lord knew of him ; only we must not 
suppose that he had heard a good account of him ; for the very point 
of the narrative lies in this, that the Saviour went in to lodge with 
the ἀδίκοις, unjust (comp. ver. 10, τὸ ἀπολωλός), which is a great 
offence to the δικαίοις, gust. Thus the aim of this engaging narra- 
tive is to set forth by facts the condescending love of the Redeemer, 
which impels him to go down into the lowest depths in order to 
bring up with him the lost. In Zaccheus is represented that lowly 
humiliation through the feeling of sin, which makes him regard him- 
self as excluded from the communion of the saints. But it was this 
true feeling of repentance which made him susceptible to those 
higher powers of life which Jesus brought him. 

Ver. 7, 8—Those in whom the Pharisaic feeling prevailed, could 
not bear the intercourse of the Messiah with sinners, and murmured. 
The idea of ἁμαρτωλός, sinner, therefore, is not to be restricted here, 
not to be referred merely to his rank and connexions in life, but, as the 
following context shews us, is to be taken in a personal sense. Schlei- 
ermacher, however (on Luke, p. 238), supposes most justly that the 
declaration of dissatisfaction and the vows of the publican were not 
uttered till the morning of Christ’s departure. The conversations 
between our Lord and Zaccheus, which must be supposed to have 
taken place, would, in that case, better account for his promises, and 
especially what follows will find a much more close connexion through 
the expression ἀκουόντων αὐτῶν ταῦτα, as they heard those things 
(xix. 11). Finally, the words of Zaccheus express first the feeling 
of thankfulness for the mercy which had been shewn him, and next 
the feeling of penitence and the acknowledgment that he was bound 
as much as possible to make reparation for his sins. The assump- 
tion that the declaration εἴ τινός τι ἐσυκοφάντησα, Kk, τ. λ., if I have 
defrauded any man, &c., is an expression of his righteousness, and 
of his having a good conscience, would conduct us wholly to the 
standing-point of the Pharisees. It is rather an acknowledgment 
of guilt.* (As to καταλύω, compare Luke ii. 7 ; ix. 12.—On συκοφαν-- 
τέω see at Luke in. 14.) 

Ver. 9, 10.—On these feelings of true repentance and grateful 
reciprocal love, the Savfour founds the saving (σωτηρία) of Zaccheus 


* “TFT have defraudod any one,” &., is a common Greek idiom for ‘‘ whomsoever I 
have defrauded.” —[K. 


Luxe XIX. 11-28. 135 


and those belonging to him (in so far as through his conversion the 
principle of a higher life was introduced into the entire house, all 
whose members were brought into contact with it), to which as a 
descendant of Abraham, he had the most immediate title (compare 
on Matth. x. 6). This is brought forward in contrast with the con- 
duct of the Pharisees in despising those persons who, by the circum- 
stances of their lives, had been entangled in manifold sins ; and 
finally, the very object of the sending forth the Son of Man is made 
to consist in this compassionate exercise of love towards those who 
had become subject to perdition (ἀπώλεια). This compassionate 
love effects as well the comm. ncement of the higher life (ζητῆσαι) as 
its accomplishment (σῶσαι), so that all is its work (comp. on Matth. 
evil, Lig ix. 12, 13). 


§ 6. THE PARABLE OF THE TALENTS. 
(Luke xix. 11-28; [Matth. xxv. 14-30.]) 


The following parable is here so expressly joined to the historical 
connexion by definite historic data (ἀκουόντων αὐτῶν, ver. 11, and 
εἰπὼν ταῦτα ἐπορεύετο ἔμπροσθεν, ver. 28), and has besides in its con- 
stituent parts so distinct a reference to the prominent cireum- 
stances, that we cannot doubt that it stands here in its proper piace: 
There is, to wit, conceived in the parable a twofold relation of the 
ruler, on the one hand, to his δοῦλοι, servants (ver, 13), and, on the 
other, to his citizens (πολῖται). Hach of these finds its separate de- 
velopment and its peculiar application. The servants represent the 
apostles and disciples, the citizens the Jewish people. In the case 
of the former their faithfulness or unfaithfulness to the trust com- 
mitted to them is praised or blamed ; in the case of the latter their 
disobedience to their rightful Lord is punished. The idea, how- 
ever, which is brought forward as connecting these two relations is 
this (ver. 11), that they (αὐτούς being used as comprehending both 
the disciples and the people) were expecting the revelation of the 
Messianic kingdom immediately (παραχρῆμα) on his arrival at Jeru- 
salem. Without denying that such a revelation would one day 
take place, our Lord directs the minds of his disciples merely to the 
future (ver. 12), and draws their attention to that which is most im- 
portant, namely, to the great final reward which it will bring along 
with it for all ; for the faithful servants fullness of blessing, but bit- 
ter punishment for the unfaithful—a truth which carried with it a 
solemn admonition for all the disciples, urging them to fidelity ; for 
the rebellious citizens (by whom we are to understand the whole 
Israelitish people, held under the power of Pharisaic influence and 


136 Luxe XIX, 11-28, 


opposed to the Lord) wrath and destruction (ver. 14, 27). Such re- 
presentations were fitted to withdraw the attention of al/ from mere 
externals to that which was internal, in order to prepare them for 
receiving the right blessing from the appearance of the Messiah, 
But, inasmuch as Matthew (xxy. 14-30) has inserted the parable 
into a collection of similitudes, which all have reference to the fu- 
ture kingdom of God, we will consider it more closely in that con- 
nexion, which will serve so greatly to explain its contents. True, 
Schleiermacher (p. 239) has cast a doubt on the identity of the two 
parables, but in my view without sufficient grounds,; for, first as 
respects his remark that what is said of the hostile citizens who 
would not have the Lord to reign over them forms the leading point 
in the parable, and that it would not therefore have been left out 
by Matthew, the manner in which the similitude is carried out by 
Luke at once shews that this isa point of but subordinate import- 
ance, [?] for it is disposed of in two verses (ver. 14, 27). The Sa- 
viour’s great object was to shew the disciples that the Parousia (his 
second coming) was not so nearat hand ; it is only incidentally that 
the uncalled accusers of the acts of the Messiah (xix. 7) have their 
attention directed to what they must expect on his return. Mat- 
thew, therefore, might properly leave out this incidental point, 
which was of no importance whatever in his collection of parables 
(Matth. xxv.), a collection intended solely for the members of the 
“kingdom.” But what Matthew has omitted might be left out 
without in the least altering the essence of the parable. [Ὁ] The 
one relation represented as subsisting between the Lord and his 
servants, by no means excludes another between him and the citi- 
zens. ‘There remains, therefore, only the single remark, that the 
parable in Matthew would seem to be rendered extremely difficult 
by the fact that all the servants in Luke receive equal sums, and the 
faithful servants gain therewith unequal amounts, while in Matthew 
they receive unequal sums, and gain therewith equal amounts. 
Here I am certainly not unwilling to suppose that Luke has retain- 
ed the original form of the parable, inasmuch, namely, as the men- 
tion of ten servants is a point which harmonizes well with the ten 
virgins (Matth. xxv, 1), and the equal division of the talents, un- 
derstood as referring to that calling into the kingdom of God which 
fell equally to the lot of all the disciples, and the furnishing of 
them with power from above, which was essentially needful for it, 
seems most appropriate to the great lesson primarily intended to be 
taught (the faithful use of that which a man has received), But 
the parable is in no respect essentially altered by the view given of 
it in Matthew; for if Matthew makes more to be bestowed on one, 
and less on another, he thus merely adds the trait (by which, how- 
ever, the similitude is not rendered adifferent one), that the powers 


MatrtrHew XXI. 1. 137 


bestowed on different individuals, for labouring in the kingdom of 
God, are different ; but since less is demanded from those who are 
less fully furnished, it comes to be, after all, essentially the same 
thing. For, as respects the main point in the representation of the 
servants, the contrast, namely, between the faithful and the unfaith- 
ful, it is in the two accounts entirely the same. Hence I cannot 
think (with Schleiermacher, p. 240) that the Saviour had spoken 
the parable in the simpler form of Matthew, and at a later period 
repeated it in the more extended form of Luke. [This seems still 
the most natural supposition. This special feature of the cctizens, 
when sufferings and death await Jesus, is absolutely essential. As 
respects the ‘‘ went” (ἐπορεύθη, v. 12) the representation is drawn 
from the political relations of the time. The Herodians journeyed 
to Rome (εἰς χώραν) to obtain from the ruler of the world dominion 
over one or another Tetrarchy, while (v. 14) the citizens of the 
country sent an embassy after him (to the emperor) deprecating his 
rule. Precisely thus had the Jews done with Archelaus (Jos, Ant. 
xvii. 141). With these citizens Jesus compares the Jews who 
would not have him for their king (comp. John xix. 15); hence he 
must leave their land, and repair to the supreme Ruler of the world, 
to God, to receive from him an assignment of the kingdom, and then 
return. | 


B. SECOND SECTION. 


Curist’s ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM AND THE DESCRIPTION OF HIS 
MINISTRY THERE, 


(Matth. xxi—xxv ; Mark xi—xiii ; Luke xix. 29—xxi. 38 


‘ 

Although in this section it is easy to see that in all the three 
Evangelists there is chronologically a movement in advance, inas- 
much as everything here recorded (even according to the narrative 
of Matthew) belongs to the closing period of our Lord’s ministry, 
and although the parallel relationship of the gospels, as mutually 
supplementing each other, comes unmistakably into view ; yet Mat- 
thew even here is so far from renouncing the peculiar character of 
his writings, that it can be most clearly discerned from the very 
contents of this section. Matthew gives first (xxi. 1-16), an his- 
torical introduction, but then proveeds to arrange his materials 
under several general points of view, and, in particular, gives us 
extended collections of our Lord’s discourses and of his parables, 
From xxi, 17—xxui. 46, he treats of the efforts made by the Pharisees 


138 MartrHew XXII, 1. 


and Sadaucees to lay hold of the Saviour, and the defeat of their 
bold and vain attempts. At xxiii. 1-39, there follows an extended 
account of our Lord’s judgment on the Pharisees, addressed to his 
disciples ; and finally, in the xxiv. and xxv. chapters, the section is 
concluded by the discourses of Jesus in relation to his second com- 
ing, and the various relations which men sustain to that event. 
Now it is not to be doubted that in these different portions we have 
only those discourses of our Lord which belong to the last days of 
his ministry ; for it was only at that closing period that Jesus could 
feel called on to express himself so freely on the subject of his re- 
turn, and the topics connected with it ; only at that closing period 
when the bitterness of the Pharisees had risen to the highest pitch, 
is it possible to conceive such malicious attempts on their part, and 
such strong declarations against them on the part of the Redeemer. 
But assuredly we must not assume that everything given by Mat- 
thew in this section was spoken precisely during the stay of Jesus 
in Jerusalem; particular parts clearly belonging to a somewhat earlier 
time (comp. especially the parable at Matth. xxv. 14, seq. which is 
given earlier by Luke xix. 11, seq. in a definite chronological connex- 
ion.)* Meanwhile Mark, in this section, also still entirely preserves his 
character ; he follows Matthew and Luke alternately, but endeavours 
by exact description, and by preserving individual traits which had 
escaped the others, to give life to the narrative. 

As regards the chronology of this section, we here find again 
little attention paid to it by Matthew. He seems indeed to wish 
to connect Christ’s entry (xxi. 1) expressly with his leaving Jericho 
(xx. 29), but in what follows, all notices of the time when events 
happen are cast into the back-ground, if we except his notice of the 
retirement to Bethany and the return to Jerusalem (xxi. 17, 18.) 
Passages, however, like Matth. xxii. 46, resume a form so general, 
that, altogether apart from the contents of Matthew’s statements, 
and of the results drawn from a comparison of the other narratives, 
it is clear that this Evangelist did not set out with the idea of fol- 
lowing strictly the order of events and of discourses. The following 
mention (xxiv. 1) of our Lord’s retiring from the Temple is plainly 
to be viewed merely as a connecting link to introduce the subsequent 
discourse, so that we cannot from this infer that every thing which 
precedes must have been spoken in the Temple. Not till Matth. 
xxvi. 2, does the Evangelist give a fixed date (two days before the 
Passover). With this date Mark (xiv. 1) agrees, as he does also in 
connecting the entry into Jerusalem (xi. 1), with the leaving of 
Jericho (x. 40). In regard, however, to the intervening topics, Mark 
is more minutely exact than Matthew, inasmuch as he gives more 


* Even Matth. xxvi. 6, seq., who is followed also by Mark, records the account of the 
supper at Bethany, which we know from John xii. took place at an earlier poriod. 


| Matrurw XXI. 1, 139 


definitely the journey to Bethany and the return to Jerusalem (xi. 
11, 15, 19, 27), and also arranges with greater care the individual 
facts which occurred during these days. Luke on the other hand, 
merely connects the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, as Matthew and 
Mark also do, with his presence in Jericho (xix. 1, 29), but beyond 
this gives no more distinct chronological data, using only such gen- 
eral forms of expression as ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων, in one of those 
days, (xx. 1*), and ἤγγιζε ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων, the feast of unleavened 
bread was approaching (xxii. 1), while Matthew and Mark in the 
parallel passages definitely mention two days. Hence, without the 
more detailed accounts of John, we should have remained entirely 
in the dark as to the period of the solemn entry of Jesus into Jeru- 
salem, and all that took place immediately before and after it. 
For, according to John (comp. the remarks on Luke ix. 51), the 
Saviour, after his journey to the feast of the dedication (in Decem- 
ber), never returned back from Jerusalem to Galilee. He remained 
rather in Perea (comp. x. 22, 40), and came to Bethany (xi. 7) only 
for the purpose of raising Lazarus. After that, however, our Lord 
went to the city of Ephraim (xi. 54, it lay eight miles to the north 
of Jerusalem), and was found again, six days before the Passover 
(xii. 1), in Bethany, where they prepared for him a supper. On the 
day following the entry into the city took place (xii. 12). True 
according to the account of John also, many points still remain un- 
determined, but this very circumstance renders it easier to reconcile 
his narrative with that of the synoptical gospels. For, first, John 
is entirely silent as to the length of Jesus’ stay at Ephraim, as 
well as in regard to the road by which he travelled thence to 
Bethany. As the synoptical Evangelists merely record the whole 
journey of Jesus in the most general way, and particularly as they 
are silent as to the important events which took place at Bethany, 
the conjecture already referred to above (at Luke ix. 51) is not im- 
probable (comp. Tholuck on John xii, 1) that Jesus performed short 
excursions from Ephraim, and even visited Jericho. (See the re- 
marks on Luke ix. 51.) True, when we read the synoptical gospels 
by themselves (Matth. xxi. 1, Mark xi. 1, Luke xix. 29), the account 
of the entry sounds as though our Lord had come from Jericho 
direct to Jerusalem (ὅτε ἤγγισαν εἰς “Ἱεροσόλυμα), particularly as, 
according to Mark (xi. 11), the entry took place toward the evening 
and Jesus, for this reason, set out immediately with the Twelve for 
Bethany. But a positive contradiction to John is nowhere to be 

* Dr. Paulus has to be sure been inclined to view this passage as containing the men- 
tion of a definite date, understanding it to mean on the first weck day, ὁ. 6.,) on the first 
day after a Sabbath (according to the analogy of μία τῶν σαββάτων). But the addition 
of ἐκείνων, which, though wanting in the MSS., undoubtedly belongs to the text, at once 


renders it impossible for us to adopt this hypothesis, which on other grounds has nothing 
in support of it. Nowhere do we finda week styled αἱ ἡμέραι, 


140 Matruew XXI. 1. 


traced; he merely separates into its miuor details what the others 
shortly compress into a single expression, which, taken by itself, might 
certainly be understood as implying that there had been no interven- 
ing stay of Jesus in Bethany, but is more definitely determined by 
John, if we suppose that Jesus went from Ephraim to Bethany, 
taking Jericho in his way. For as to the time of day when the 
entry took place, according to the account of John (xii. 12, on the 
day after the supper), there is nothing which compels us to transfer 
it to the morning, and we may therefore take the notice of Mark 
(xi. 11), as a more definite explanation of the account of John, and 
suppose that it took place in the evening. The subsequent narra- 
tive of John loses its strict chronological character. For the first 
time at xii, 36, he mentions a departure of Jesus (but not expressly 
to Bethany), and at xii. 1, he comes at once to the last supper. 
Even the accurately marked expression, xii, 1, πρὸ ἕξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ 
πάσχα, six days before the Passover, is again rendered indefinite by 
the vagueness of the narrative, inasmuch as both the day of the 
passover, and.also the day of the entry, may either be included in 
the six days, or may be excluded. Still, however, it isin the highest 
degree probable that the day of our Lord’s arrival was the Sabbath; 
that in the evening there was prepared for him at Bethany a solemn 
Sabbath-supper, and then towards the evening of the following day 
(John xii, 12), that is to say of Sunday, he held his entry into Jeru- 
salem. There is thus, in my opinion, not the slightest ground to 
suppose with Dr. Paulus (ad. loc.), and with Schleiermacher (on 
Luke, p. 240, seq.), that there was a twofold entry, the one on his 
coming direct from Jericho to Jerusalem (which is supposed to be 
recounted in the synoptical gospels), the second, the day after on his 
coming from Bethany (which is recorded by John.)* For, even the 
remark that the Saviour would surely have brought the ass on which 
he made his entry with him from Bethany is without weight, for, 
the indefinite expression εὑρὼν ὀνάριον, finding an ass, at John xii, 
14, is at once opposed to this idea ; and accordingly Matth. xxi. 1, 
merely defines this finding, and remarks more exactly that the 
ass came from Bethphage. In the accounts of Mark and Luke, 
the conjoining of Bethphage and Bethany certainly seems to indi- 
cate that the Evangelists had heard of a stay having been made by 
Jesus at the latter place, with the details of which, however, they 
were not acquainted. 


* Lucke also (comp, on John xii. 12) is opposed to the idea of a twofold entry 
He mentions the additional fact (p. 338), that if we suppose the entry repeated on the 
morning of the second day, noroom would remain for the δεῖπνον and visit, for, accord- 
ing to Mark xi. 11, it was not till late in the evening that Jesus came to Bethany. 


MarrHew XXII, 1. 141 


§ 1. Tae Enrry or Curist into JERUSALEM. 
(Matth. xxi. 1-11; Mark xi. 1-10; Luke xix. 29-44; John xii. 12-19. 


Looking now to the Saviour as he enters Jerusalem on his way 
to that bitter death of the cross, which he knew with certainty was 
there awaiting him (Matth. xvi. 21; xx. 18), the question naturally 
suggests itself; on what grounds did our Lord not refrain on this 
occasion from going up to the feast? On this point there is 
enough to be gathered, even from the external circumstances, to 
shew that the death of Jesus was no self-sought, refined act of 
suicide. For, friends and foes, with equal earnestness, expected his 
arrival—the former, in the hope of seeing him at last come forth 
in the fulness of his glory ; the latter, in the hope of destroying 
him, and exposing him as a false Messiah. ‘To have stayed away, 
therefore, must have appeared prejudicial to his work, and the con- 
viction of this consequently must have impelled him to meet the 
danger. The precept also of the Mosaic law, that all males should 
on the high festivals appear in the Temple, must have caused Christ 
to go to Jerusalem, unconcerned for the consequences which this 
journey might bring upon him. (Hx. xxii. 17.) But these ideas 
are by no means sufficient to account for our Lord’s giving himself 
up to death, which his appearance in the midst of his embittered 
enemies involved. According to his own distinct declarations, the 
Saviour’s death was voluntary (John x. 18, ἐγὼ τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν pov 
ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ) Acquainted with the Father’s decree for the redemp- 
tion of men, Christ of his own free purpose entered into it, and 
became obedient to the Father even unto death (Phil. 11. 8 ; Heb. 
v. 8). His going to Jerusalem, therefore, cannot be viewed as 
standing apart from the necessity of his death itself. According to 
the predictions of the Old Testament, in which the everlasting 
counsel of the Father was set forth (Matth, xxvi. 24; Luke xxiv. 
26, 27, 46; 1 Cor. xv. 8), it was in this way that the Saviour was 
to be made pertect for himself and for the Church. ὅο long, there- 
fore, as his hour (and the Father’s) was not yet come (Matth, xxvi. 
45; Mark xiv. 41; John xii. 27; xvii.1), he avoided all the machi- 
nations of his enemies ; but when the previously announced will of 
God (Luke ix. 31) was inwardly and certainly revealed to him, 
Christ followed it with childlike obedience (not exerting his might 
for his own deliverance, Matth. xxvi. 53, 54), and gave himself up 
a ransom for many (Matth, xx. 28). The act of Jesus, therefore, in 
going forward to that death which he looked for with certainty 
in Jerusalem, is to be explained chiefly from the relation in which 
he stood to the will of the Father, which must by no means be re- 


142 MatTrHew XXII, 1, 


garded as the will of a vengeful Being, who from mere caprice 
selected the innocent as a sacrifice in the room of the guilty, but 
assuredly as the righteous and holy will of the Father, who found 
an everlasting redemption in the equal balancing of justice and 
mercy, in such a way, that the righteous one, placing himself, in his 
free love, on the same footing with the unrighteous, did, by thus 
going down to their level, bring them up to hisown. The will of the 
Father (as of pure love) therefore was equally the will of the Son, 
and the struggle at Gethsemane (Matth. xxvi. 39) is merely to be 
viewed as this will victorious in the Son’s human nature—a will the 
accomplishment of which was resisted by the powers of darkness, 

Another and more difficult point in regard to this occurrence is 
the solemn entry made by Jesus. By it the Saviour appears to have 
awakened and nourished those earthly Messianic hopes which on 
other occasions he combatted. The attempt to represent that entry, 
however, as accidental, is excluded first by this consideration, that 
it must have been so easy for our Lord to reach the city quietly and 
unobserved, had such been his object. And in the next place, 
Christian consciousness refuses to ascribe to accident so important 
an act in the Saviour’s life. The design of the narrators, moreover, 
is obviously by no means to represent this transaction as having 
taken place unintentionally ; its connexion with the prophecies of 
the Old Testament (Matth. xxi. 5; John xii. 14) at once shews 
that there was an intention to fulfil them. Certainly, however, it 
is inconceivable that our Lord should have done anything merely 
for the purpose of fulfilling a prophecy ; the fact must have some 
demonstrable connexion with his person and office, and thus the 
prophecy itself rest on a deeper foundation. This foundation I find 
in the whole ordering of our Lord’s life on earth. Although he ap- 
peared in poverty and humiliation, and although the Jews could 
discover in him nothing of that external splendour with which they 
conceived that the appearance of the Messiah would be surrounded, yet 
even in his outward manifestations there were to be found indications 
of what his exalted dignity required. This very entry belongs to 
the number of these indications, and it stands here as the type of 
what he is one day to do in taking possession of the kingdom of God 
in glory. Such a type our Lord intended it to be. The disciples 
at a later period (according to John xii, 16) learned for the first time 
the meaning of the act, and connected it in consequence with the 
prophecies of the Old Testament. 

As to the relation of the three narratives to each other, Mark 
once more appears the most complete and minute. He gives 
us especially the acts of Jesus, subsequently to the entry, with 
greater detail than Matthew, who, in his account of them, keeps 
much more to generalities. ‘True, however, the narrative of Mat- 


Marruew XXI, 1, 2. 143 


thew is enriched by the reference to the Old Testament, which, in 
the view of the two other Evangelists, was less significant. Luke 
also has embodied (xix. 39-44) in his narrative peculiar traits which 
must have originated with a close observer and near companion of 
Christ. The passages from the gospel of John, which run parallel 
to this and the following paragraphs of the section on which we are 
engaged, will be explained here only in so far as they aid our under- 
standing of the synoptical gospels. 

Ver. 1, 2.—After the Saviour (according to John xii. 1, seq.) 
had staid in Bethany, he went by way of Bethphage (s:2 n-3 from 
8535 figs [Song 11. 13] which grew abundantly there) which was situ- 
uated in the neighbourhood of Bethany, towards Jerusalem. (The 
joining together of Bethphage and Bethany in Mark and Luke is a 
loose statement, which seems to rest on the circumstance that the 
Saviour had stopped also at Bethany, though certainly not during 
his journey, which rather commenced from that place.) John’s ac- 
count, according to which the men came from Jerusalem to meet 
Jesus, does not stand opposed to that of the synoptical gospels ; it 
only delineates the scene more fully. Some might have accompa- 
nied Christ from Bethany and Bethphage, while others came out of 
the city to meet him. According to the representation of Matthew, 
it admits of no doubt that the two disciples were sent into Beth- 
phage, which lay at the foot of the Mount of Olives (Ὅρος τῶν 
ἐλαιῶν, orn 17, Zech. xiv. 4, was situated only a few stadia from 
Jerusalem, and the road to Jericho lay over it). Here our Lord 
commanded them to bring him an ass, which they would find there 
(John xii. 14 has the expression εὑρὼν ὀνάριον, finding an ass, which 
apples indeed to Christ himself, inasmuch as he says nothing of his 
sending the disciples. [It is by no means natural here] to suppose 
that an agreement concerning the ass had been previously entered 
into by Jesus. The word εὑρών, finding, used by John appears to 
favour the supposition that the finding was accidental. The nature 
of the transaction, and probably also the meaning of the narrators, 
harmonizes better with that account of the matter, which supposes 
that the Messiah on his entry found all that he needed placed to 
his hand by Divine adjustment, and thus that there was no ante- 
cedent agreement in the case. Certainly, however, we must suppose 
those to whom the animal belonged were the friends of Jesus. Mat- 
thew, closely following the prophecy (Zech, ix. 9), makes mention 
of two animals ;* Mark and Luke allude only to the πῶλον, colt, 
adding, that it never had been rode upon. (Beasts that never had 
been used were supposed to possess the character of being pure and 
unblemished, for which reason they were carefully made use of for 
sacrifices, Deut. xxi. 3.) From this addition it clearly follows that 

* L e., the foal which Jesus rode, and the mother beside which it had been fastened. 


144 MatrHew XXI. 3-7. 


it was this animal which was to carry our Lord ; the mother may 
either have been led behind or have followed ; but in any case, we 
may suppose that Matthew was quite right in his statement, that 
two animals were brought. 

Ver. 3-5.—The disciples were enjoined merely to mention our 
Lord to the possessors of the animals, on which statement they 
would at once be given up to them. (The expression ὁ κύριος, the 
lord, presupposes an acquaintance with the Saviour on the part of 
the owners of the ass [comp. on Matth. xvi. 4]. Here, however, 
the ὁ κύριος, although it has the article, is not to be taken in any 
higher sense, inasmuch as ἡμῶν 15 merely to be supplied.) Matthew 
immediately adds, that this fact had already been mentioned in the 
Old Testament. (The formula ἵνα πληρωθῆ, that it might be fulfilled, 
has here assuredly, according to the view of Matthew, the literal 
meaning of an intentional fulfilment. Compare on Matth, 1. 22.) 
The passage Zech. ix. 9 stands in a remarkable prophetic connexion. 
The Messiah is described (ver. 10) as the Prince of Peace to whom 
the whole earth is subject, and in this character he makes his. 
entry into the Holy City—Jerusalem being viewed as the centre of 
the spiritual kingdom. Although primarily the account of the entry 
given by Zechariah appears merely figurative (inasmuch as the ass, 
as the symbol of peace, stands contrasted with the horse, ver. 10, as 
the symbol of war), yet the guiding hand of Providence loves to re- 
produce such features with literal accuracy, mingling together things 
the most exalted and the most minute with the boldest freedom and 
most careful exactness, As regards the text of the quotation, Mat- . 
thew is found again dealing freely with the passage. The LXX. 
translate almost literally from the Hebrew χαῖρε σφόδρα θύγατερ Σιὼν, 
κήρυσσε θύγατερ ἹἹερουσαλήμ᾽ ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἔρχεταί oot δίκαιος, καὶ 
σώζων, αὐτὸς πραὺς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον καὶ πῶλον νέον. The 
point to which Matthew gives special prominence respecting Jesus 
is merely the πραῦς, meek, in order to indicate the character of the 
gracious dominion of his sceptre, which this whole entry symbolizes. 
Along with the passage from Zechariah, however, Matthew seems . 
to have combined another from Isa, Ixii. 11, at least the words 
εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιών, say to the daughter of Zion, are borrowed 
from it. 

Ver. 6, 7.—The act of bringing the animal itself is described by 
Mark, according to his manner, in full detail ; he even observes the 
way in which it was tied. (“Audodog or ἄμφοδον = ῥύμη, a street, a 
road. Inthe New Testament it occurs only here.) The expression 
also τινὲς τῶν ἐκεῖ. ἑστηκότων, some of those standing there, is marked by 
vived outward portraiture. (Luke xix. 33 mentions several mas- 
ters, perhaps they may have been sons of the possessor, who came 
upon the apostles, and who, as such, may also have been called 


Matruew XXI, 8-11. 145 


owners of the animal.) When they brought the animals to Jesus, 
they spread (according to the Oriental custom, instead of a saddle) 
their clothes upon one of them, and set Jesus on it. (In the text of 
Matthew ἐπεκάθισεν, is certainly the right reading, but the account of 
Luke [ἐπεβίβασαν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν] deserves doubtless the preference. In 
this act of the people they plainly expressed their acknowledgment 
of Jesus as the Messianic King.—The words ἐπάνω αὐτῶν, upon 
them, by Matthew are merely a loose form of expression. The two 
animals are viewed as taken together, and thus everything which 
happened to one of them [πῶλον] is applied also to the other.) 

Ver. 8-11—This account of what was done around Jesus before 
the commencement of the procession is followed by a description of 
the exulting and triumphant joy which broke forth on the part of 
the peopie. They spread their clothes on the road (2 Kings ix. 18, 
as the token of an honourable reception), and scattered branches 
along the way over which Jesus passed. (Instead of κλάδοι, Mark 
has στοιβάδες, from στοίβη, copsewood, branches. John xii, 13 has 
the more specific expression βαΐα τῶν φοινίκων, palm-branches, 
See ad loc.) At the same time, however, they received Jesus with 
salutations addressed to him as the Messiah. (Luke xix. 87 accu- 
rately describes the locality here [it was at the κατάβαςις τοῦ ὄρους 
τῶν ἐλαιῶν], and remarks that the miracles of Jesus were the sub- 
ject of praise to God. Probably this remark refers primarily to the 
raising of Lazarus, which according to John xii. 9, had attracted so 
many to Bethany.) The words of salutation quoted here are taken 
from a song of triumph* (from Ps. cxviii. 26) which refers typically 
to the Messiah. (The >"> κ5 nz-¥in is translated by the LXX. κύριε 
σῶσον δή. Mark has carried out the expressions, inasmuch as he ap- 
plies the word εὐλογημένος, blessed, also to the βασιλεία, kingdom, 
which is ascribed to David as representative of the royal dignity be- 
longing to the Messiah [Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24]. Luke entirely omits 
the term ὡσαννά, hosanna, with which his readers were unacquainted. 
The last clause is difficult—ocavvd ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις, hosanna in the 
highest. It is best to understand it with Fritzsche as meaning that 
the exclamation of hosanna is supposed to be transferred also to 
heaven, in order to intimate that Jesus was also to be joyfully ac- 
knowledged by the heavenly world.) That, however, which the fickle 
multitude here praised in Jesus they within a few days denied that 
they could find in him, after having been disappointed in the ex- 
pected appearance of that outwardly glorious kingdom towards which 
their carnal hopes were specially directed. The people were thus 
to acknowledge and salute Jesus of their own free-will, as the Mes- 
siah, in order that it might afterwards be said that they had rejected 
their (acknowledged) King. 

* As to this see the remarks on Matth. xxi. 42. 


Vou. 1]1.---10 


146 Luxe XIX. 39-44, 


Luke xix. 39-44 relates other interesting traits of Jesus during 
hisentry. First he mentions a conversation with some Pharisees who, 
even at this moment, when men were carried away and intoxicated 
with joy, uttered certain cold reflections against the rejoicings of the 
people (compare the entirely similar occurrence, Matth. xxi. 15, 16). 
Full of chagrin that the people did homage to Jesus, they ventured 
to ask Jesus himself to repress the shouts of those who hailed him 
as the Messiah. [The manner of the demand manifestly involves a 
threat. They represent it as a crime, a state offence, that he should 
receive such homage.] Our Lord, however, here indirectly acknow- 
ledges his own kingly dignity, inasmuch as he declares that it could 
not be otherwise, and that he must, amid triumphant joy and the 
free acknowledgment of his dignity, make his entry into the Holy 
City. (From the reference of the λίθοι κεκράξονται, the stones will 
ery out, to Hab, ii. 11, where the stones in the wall and the beams 
are represented as speaking, it is to be taken literally, and explained 
from proverbial usage. It is intended to set forth the necessity for 
the loud expression of joy even on the part of minds the most inani- 
mate, and thus to shew the importance of the moment.) Amidst 
this general exultation, however, which the Saviour would by no 
means interfere with, there yet mingled the silent tears of sadness 
as, descending from the brow of the Mount of Olives, he looked on 
the Holy City, the mother and the altar of the saints (Luke xiii. 
33). In spirit Jesus beheld that same people who now met him 
with shouts of joy, opening their ears to the hostile influences of 
the Pharisees, and, by trifling away the opportunity of salvation 
which had come so near them, preparing for themselves a fearful 
doom. In the lively contemplation of these violent contrasts—the 
exulting salutation of the rejoicing multitude, and the approaching 
murderous cry of crucify him—the peaceful repose of the city as it 
lay spread out before his view, and the storms of war which were to 
roll up towards its walls—the inclinations and needs of men for the 
one side, and the power of darkness deciding them to take the other 
—amidst such contemplations, feelings the most varied must have 
filled the Saviour’s soul. The relation in which the people stood to 
himself specially implies the possibility of a free choice on their part 
in his favour, because without such a possibility, neither the guilt 
which the people drew down upon themselves by rejecting the Lord, 
nor their punishment, could have been applicable to them. True, 
however, Christ puts their guilt here in the mildest form, when he 
makes it consist in their not knowing,* or in having their spiritual 
yiews so darkened as not to perceive the full significance of the mo- 
ment. (At Acts i. 17, 1 Cor. 11.8, this want of knowledge is ex- 


* Compare, however, on Matth. xxiii. 38, as to the connexion between the want of 
will and the want of knowledge. 


Mark XI. 11-14, 147 


tended also to the rulers who crucified Jesus. But, this want of 
knowledge and blindness must be viewed as itself implying guilt, 
inasmuch as it presupposes unfaithfulness in the use of the means 
for enlightening the spiritual perceptions which God had so richly 
put within the reach of the people. Peculiar to this passage is the 
expression ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σου ταύτη, in this thy day, instead of which 
there is given at ver. 44, καιρὸς τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς σου, the time of thy 
visitation. It expresses the idea that nations (as well as indi- 
viduals) have in their advancing development moments, on the use 
or neglect of which their condition, through long periods of time, 
depends—periods of crisis, as it were, in which the decisive step for 
good or evil is taken, Through the preceding periods certainly the 
decision may have been rendered probable on the one side or the 
other (as was the case here with the Jewish people), but everything 
would fall under the dominion of stern necessity, should we main- 
tain the absolute impossibility of its being otherwise than it was. 
The contest between the small number of noble minds among the 
Jewish people and the great corrupt mass, was brought out to view 
by the Redeemer appearing in the midst of them. While the former 
attached themselves to the heavenly manifestation, and found in 
him life and full enjoyment, the latter saw in it the annihilation of 
their vain hopes and selfish plans. Instead of submitting to self- 
denial, they offered up the Holy One in sacrifice, and thereby con- 
summated at once their own destruction and the salvation of the 
world, (As to ἐπισκοπή = mp8 comp. on Luke i, 68, 78.) As re- 
spects the representation which our Lord gives, ver. 43, 44, of the 
consequences of such unfaithfulness, and which he sets forth only 
under their external aspect, they will be more fully considered on 
the parallel passages, Matth. xxiii. 87 ; Luke xxiii. 27. 


§ 2. Tae Fic Tree Cursep. 
(Mark xi, 11-14.) 


In this and the two following paragraphs Mark shews himself 
unmistakeably the more exact narrator as respects chronology. He 
remarks (xi. 11) that the entry of our Lord took place towards even- 
ing, and hence, after he had visited the Temple, he immediately re- 
turned with the twelve to Bethany. Matthew, on the other hand, 
places the driving out of the merchants and the cures (ver. 14) also 
on the day of the entry, and not till after these does he recount with 
Mark the departure for Bethany (ver. 17). The account of the 
Messianic salutation which the children joyously repeated in the 
Temple agrees, indeed, very well with the day of the entry, but not 
less so with the following day. The exclamation of the children 


148" “Marx ΧΙ. 11-14, 


appears as the echo of the people’s exulting shout on the preceding 
day. The unchronological character of Matthew, however, is 
peculiarly conspicuous in his account of the withered fig tree. He 
transfers, indeed, as does Mark, Christ’s visiting the fig tree to the 
morning of the day after the entry ; but the account of the marked 
fulfilment of the curse pronounced by Jesus, and the conversations 
on faith therewith connected, are immediately conjoined therewith, 
while, according to Mark (xi. 19, 20), a whole day intervened. 
From such inexactness, however, on the part of Matthew, we are 
not to conclude that his statements are unreliable, and that the 
apostolic origin of his gospel is improbable, but rather that his lead- 
ing aim was not the description of things external, but the pour- 
traying of Jesus and his labours under certain general points of 
view. As was already observed above (on Matth. xxi, 1), these his- 
toric topics which Matthew brings together in this section form only 
an introduction to his lengthened account of the manner in which 
our Saviour conducted himself towards his powerful adversaries. 
Hastening on to this, he describes only in general terms those ex- 
ternal circumstances which it is the proper object of Mark fully to 
pourtray. 

As respects the cursing of the fig-tree itself, the narrative of 
Mark in particular, and the whole fact as it stands, presents con- 
siderable difficulties. As regards, first, the account of Mark, there 
is something remarkable in the expression, οὐ γὰρ ἣν καιρὸς σύκων, 
Jor it was not the time of figs (ver. 13), For, if we refer the expres- 
sion καιρὸς σύκων to the time in which figs ripen, one does not see 
how the Saviour, if the period generally had not arrived, should 
have sought figs on the tree. And further, as the fruit of the fig 
tree is produced earlier than the leaves, and as Mark expressly tells 
us that he found only eaves, it appears that the season of figs (καιρὸς 
σύκων) must have arrived, for in a fruitful fig tree, if the leaves were 
already expanded, fruit might certainly have been expected. [As 
it was not the time of figs, the tree should have had xo leaves, which 
generally appear after the setting of the fruit. Thus, looking at the 
season of the year, there were indeed no figs to be expected, but other- 
wise, looking at the individual habit of the tree, and its abundance 
of leaves. The tree, as having leaves, had the appearance of ex~ 
traordinary fruitfulness, nay of a tree bearing fruit even before the or- 
dinary season, and thus was a sad representation of Israel, which in 
appearance displayed extraordinary legal righteousness, but in truth 
bore no fruits of righteousness.] There is, however, still greater 
difficulty involved in the fact itself. It is not possible in any way 
to see how our Lord could curse an unfruitful fig tree if we look at 
the fact only externally. All our conceptions of the Saviour would 
be deranged by supposing so unfitting an application of his 


MatrHew XXI. 12. 149 


miraculous power, But if we understand the expression μηκέτι ἐκ 
σοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι, let no man eat fruit, etc., as 
simply a remark occasioned by the manifestly worthless nature of 
the tree, thea, first, the narrative would be aimless ; next, it is im- 
possible to see how such a remark regarding things external could 
give occasion to the subsequent instructions on faith (Mark xi. 22, 
seq.): to say nothing of the fact that such an exposition obviously 
does violence to the text, inasmuch as, according to the view of the 
Evangelist, the withering of the tree resulted from a special exer- 
cise of the Saviour’s power (ver. 2], ἡ συκῆ, ἣν κατηράσω ἐξήρανταϊ,, 
and amidst that heightened tone of holy feeling which the Redeemer 
displayed in these latter hours of his life, it was impossible that 
any observation so inane could find a place. In the delinea- 
tion, therefore, of the Saviour’s character, this fact can find a place 
as a genuine trait only when regarded as jigurative. (See as to 
the meaning and importance of many transactions, on Luke v. 
1, seq.) As the great and decisive hour approached, the holy soul 
of Jesus was occupied only with the sins of the people, who at the 
sublime moment, when all the longings and hopes of their fathers 
stood fulfilled, remained blind and deaf to the revelation of his 
glory. He, the Son of their Father in heaven, was come seeking 
those fruits of true repentance, which the law ought to have pro- 
duced, but he found them not. As the result of this unfruitfulness, 
therefore, the penal sentence now took effect after the tree had in 
vain been cared for by the true Gardener (comp. on Luke xiii. 6)— 
it must now be rooted out. The whole of this rich combination of 
ideas lies, as it were, embodied in the apparently insignificant fact ; 
and thus understood, it becomes the symbol of our Lord’s relation 
to the people of Israel and their final doom, which in connexion 
with the closing period of Christ’s ministry is of unwonted signifi- 
eance. Only on the supposition that such is the meaning of the 
transaction do the Saviour’s words, which according to Mark xi, 25, 
26, immediately follow the fact, acquire an obvious pertinence. 


§ 3. THe PuRIFICATION OF THE TEMPLE, 
(Matth. xxi, 12-16. Mark xi. 15-18. Luke xix. 45-48.) 


As respects first the relation of the synoptical gospels here to 
John (ii. 12, seq.), Liicke has come at last to maintain the identity 
of the fact according to their and his narration. But the transfer 
of an occurrence which took place at the commencement of Christ’s 
ministry to the conclusion of it, seems to me a thing so improbable, 
that I could consent to it only in a case of extreme necessity. Such 
ἃ necessity does not seem to me to exist here. For, in the first 


150 MatrHew XXI. 12. 


place, granting that the narratives of Matthew and Luke are not in 
this section minutely exact, we must yet all the more decisively 
maintain that Mark records the occurrences of the several days _ 
with the most scrupulous exactness. The narrative of the withered 
fig tree is set before us so graphically that it can only have proceeded 
from an eye-witness, and in the driving out of the money-changers, 
he has traits so special (ver 16, 17), that they attest the genuine- 
ness of his account. In a narrative such as this, such a mis- 
understanding is not to be thought of. Jn the second place, a 
. transaction such as this on the part of Jesus, both at the commence- 
ment and the close of his ministry, so far from seeming extraordi- 
nary, is in the highest degree appropriate. True, this transaction, 
as well as the former, must be regarded not merely in its 
external aspect, but as the symbol of our Lord’s entire ministry. 
Regarded merely externally, the transaction must have the appear- 
ance of being somewhat aimiess ; for, though the dealers retired for 
the moment from before our Lord, yet we can form no other sup- 
position than that, when he withdrew, they again resumed their un- 
holy traffic, since the priests did not oppose it. The whole occur- 
rence, however, acquires an ideal significance if we view its external 
aspect only as a type of the Lord’s spiritual labours. The purify- 
ing of the house of God, in the spiritual sense of the word, was his 
proper vocation, and this was symbolized at the commencement and 
close of his labours, by the act of purifying the outer sanctuary. 
The more special circumstance in John’s account of the act (espe- 
cially the ποιεῖν φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων, making a scourge, etc., as to 
which the synoptical gospels are silent) may have had exclusive 
reference to what the Saviour did at the first purification of the 
temple, for it may be supposed that at the repetition of the act the 
multitude at once vielded to the well-known Prophet. 

As respects the transaction itself, however (whether it occurred 
only once or oftener), in its connexion with the Saviour, the vio- 
lence which it manifests may seem out of keeping with the gracious 
character of Jesus. But precisely because love was completely and 
truly exhibited in the Redeemer, for that very reason there was dis- 
played in him as well its severity asits mildness. As the latter was 
manifested toward the humble, so was the former towards the bold 
and shameless ; and as here in deed, so in other passages in word 
(Luke xix. 27, Matth. xxiv.) does our Lord express himself as one 
who shall destroy the adversaries (comp. on John iii. 17, 18). The 
circumstance, however, that the act of Jesus was effectual for the 
external purification of the Temple—that for the time at least dur- 
ing which he was present, the turmoil should have been silenced, 
this is not, to be sure, to be necessarily explained by any special 
exercise of our Lord’s miraculous power, but from the fact that hr 


MattrHew XXI. 12-16. , a. 


was himself a mighty miracle. Liicke (part i. p. 536) has well ex- 
posed the utter vanity of the attempt which has been incidentally 
made to refer this transaction of Jesus to the so-called right of 
zealots. There remains in explanation of the fact only the charac- 
ter of the Saviour himself. As Jesus by his word, and by the holy 
impression of his character, disarmed the band (John vii, 46, xviii. 
6) so by his holy anger he drove the unholy men from the precincts 
of the Sanctuary. 

Ver. 12.—The so-called outer court of the heathen, consisting of 
a wide-paved space in front of the proper outer court, formed the 
scene of this transaction. In this space the sellers of animals for 
sacrifice, and the money changers, had erected their booths (n*:n), 
and thus transferred the turmoil of worldly traffic into the immedi- 
ate neighborhood of those who were engaged in prayer. (Κολλυβισ- 
τής from κόλλυβος, small coin, change, and then an agio or exchange. 
John 11. 14 has κερματιστής from κέρμα, small coin, change. Both 
expressions are parallel to that commonly used, viz. to τραπεζίτης, 
and occur in the New Testament only in this narrative.) Mark xi, 
16 gives in addition the special circumstance that vessels (σκεῦος) 
were carried hither and thither probably for the accommodation of 
the sellers, and that this our Lord also prevented. 

Ver. 13.—All the three Evangelists equally unite in giving, 
along with this act of Jesus, a reference to two passages of the Old 
Testament, viz. to Isa, lvi. 7, and Jer. vii. 11. Although the na- 
tural contrast implied in these passages is so great as easily to have 
impressed itself on the memory, yet so minute an agreement in the 
twofold quotation must be held to prove that the different narratives 
are founded on one and the same original account. Only Mark 
gives the words of Isa. lvi. T somewhat more fully, inasmuch as he 
has included also the expression πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, for all nations. Even 
Matthew also, in bringing forward these passages, has not applied to 
them his usual formula iva πληρωθῇ, that it might be fulfilled, and 
hence we are not to suppose that the words had any special reference 
to those circumstances which arose in the time of Jesus. They merely 
oppose the ideal meaning and design of the Temple to the bold 
abuse of that design as brought about at earlier and later periods 
by sin (as to καλεῖσθαι, see on Luke 1, 32.) 

Ver. 14-16.—Even iu the Temple does Jesus still continue his 
healing labours, dispensing blessings so long as he could during his 
appearance on earth, and by his efforts bestowing life on those who 
did not set themselves in opposition to the blessed influence which 
went forth from him. But here Matthew begins to bring forward 
the fact, that it was the Pharisaic party which shewed itself en- 
tirely hardened against all holy impressions. (Only here in the 
New Testament are the works of Jesus termed θαυμάσια ---- nixdp3.) 


152 MarrHew X XI, 17-22. 


The account of the continuous assaults of this party on our Lord, 
forms the leading topic of the whole subsequent narrative of Mat- 
thew. It is here related, first, how the Pharisees (just at the 
entry of Jesus, Luke xix. 39), sought to silence the Messianic shout 
of welcome which the children in their simple joyousness were rais- 
ing, as an echo to that cry of the multitude that had now died 
away, and by which they were reminded of a truth offensive to 
them. The Saviour, however, again reminds them of a Scripture 
statement (Ps. viii. 3), in which the age of childhood (773% Θ᾽ 8359) 
is represented as also fitted to proclaim the praise of God. The 
words of Matthew, moreover, closely follow the LXX. From the 
application of these words considered in itself, no inference can be 
drawn absolutely to prove the Psalm to be Messianic, for Matthew 
does not intimate here that there was any fulfilment to them, But 
the express reference of the Psalm in other passages of the New Tes- 
tament (1 Cor. xv. 27, Heb. ii. 6, 7), makes certain, indeed, the Mes- 
sianic exposition of it on the part of the apostles. Yet this by no 
means excludes the general reference of it to men as such, but rather 
does human nature appear in the Messiah (the υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) as 
ideally personified, and hence the human in him is to be viewed as 
on all sides complete and perfect, while in every other individual 
the human character is set forth only approximately. According to 
this special reference of the Psalm to the Messiah, the quotation 
acquires an immediate application to the existing circumstances, 
which otherwise this passage would not of itself have indicated. 
That which Matthew here sets forth by a special and particular 
reference, Mark (xi. 18) and Luke (xix. 47, 48) express only as a 
general idea, but they represent the hostility of the priestly party 
to Jesus, as restrained by the attachment cherished toward him by - 
the more simple multitude, who, though indeed very fickle, were 
still more susceptible of noble impressions. (Luke, λαὸς ἅπας ἐξεκ- 
ρέματο αὐτοῦ ἀκούων.) Not until this attachment was weakened by 
the insinuations of the Pharisees, did they dare to go forward with 
their dark plans (comp. Mark xxi. 46, and the parallel passages). 


§ 4. On THE Power or ΒΑΙΤΗ. 
(Matth. xxi. 17-22; Mark xi. 19-26.) 


As was already remarked above, Matthew does not treat the history 
of the withered fig tree with minute accuracy, in that while indeed 
he also makes the Redeemer, on the morning of the day succeed- 
ing his entry, go up to the tree in order to seek fruit, he makes the 
withering take place immediately on his going up to it (παραχρῆμα 
ἐξηράνθη), while the more accurate Mark relates that it was not till 


Matrruew XXI. 17-22. 153 


next morning that they observed the fulfilment of the Saviour’s 
threatening. But, looking to the entire character and purpose of 
Matthew, this is not to be regarded as an historic error, but merely 
as an abbreviated form of recording the fact. The thing which he 
had in view was not the transaction in itself as such, but the mean- 
ing which it was to bear. It was to prepare his readers for his 
leading theme, viz., Christ’s mode of dealing with the Pharisees. 
That which at chap. xxiii. is fully expressed in thought, is expressed. 
in fact by this history of the withered fig tree, viz., the destruction 
of the Pharisees and of the multitude enthralled by their spirit. 
That part of our Lord’s discourse therefore (such as Mark xi. 25, 
26), which did not subserve his object, was left out by Matthew. 
Mark, however, who gives the facts for their own sake, is accurate 
to the minutest particular. Thus he even records (ver. 21) that it 
was Peter speaking for the body of the apostles who gave occasion 
to the Saviour’s discourse. As respects the account of faith (πίστις) 
in our Lord’s discourse, all that is needful on that point has been 
set down at Matth. xvi. 20. To faith (πιστεύειν) is opposed the 
διακρίνεσθαι. as a state of inward wavering and uncertainty. (Rom. 
iv. 20, xiv. 23, διακρίνεσθαι τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ. Αμαν ead denotes primarily 
to fight, to contend with, and this meaning is transferred to the soul. 
Hence διάκρισις, doubting, is by no means synonymous with ἀπιστία, 
unbelief, for this latter expression denotes the entire absence of 
faith, the former merely the weakness of faith, which cannot attain 
to complete internal confidence.) Further, this state is ascribed to 
the heart (as πίστις is at Rom. x. 9); for in faith, we have not 
primarily to do with ideas or conceptions which are rather to be 
viewed as the consequences of it, but with the character of man in 
its innermost core. (The state of the soul’s dispositions and the 
will, in so far as it is determined by these dispositions.) At the 
most, therefore, ψυχή might have been put in room of καρδία, in so 
far asit may be viewed as concentrated in the καρδία, but in no case 
could πνεῦμα or νοῦς. 

The connexion of the ideas is not without δἰ ον ει In the 
first place, the astonishment with which the disciples viewed this 
occurrence (Matth. xxi. 20), may well surprise us after the many 
extraordinary deeds which they had seen done by our Lord. But just 
as those whose minds are filled with the sense of the Divine Omnipo- 
tence, are struck with astonishment as often as they see it displayed 
in new and exalted manifestations, so we see the disciples affected 
whenever the glory of Christ reveals itself under a new aspect. But 
the reference to faith docs not seem to connect itself entirely appro- 
priately with this astonishment, and with the question πῶς ἐξηράνθη ἡ 
συκῆ, how is the fig-tree, etc. For were we to understand the reply as 
meaning, “1 perform this through faith, and through faith you could 


L 


154 MatrHew X XI. 17-22. 


do it also,” it must be observed that the term faith (πίστις) is never 


\used of Christ’s relation to the Father. The Saviour performs his 


miracles, not through the power of faith in God, but from the Divine 
power that dwelt in himself. We can hence merely say, that our 
Lord meant to lead the disciples away from outward astonishment at 
the fact, to its internal aspects, and refer them to faith as the source 
of all power to them for the performance of outward acts. Hence 
Mark rightly begins the discourse with the admonition ἔχετε πίστιν 
Θεοῦ, have faith in God, by which he meant to turn the attention 
of the disciples to their inward life of faith as the condition of all 
their efficiency. The reference of faith to God, however, does not 
exclude faith in himself personally, as the Redeemer ; nay, God was 
manifested in him (John xiv. 9), and faith in Christ is faith on God 
in him (comp. Acts iii. 16, where faith in Jesus healed the sick). 
True, however, faith in the apostles was to manifest itself by out- 
ward deeds (John xiv. 12; ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ, μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, 
he that believeth on me, shall ds, etc., and hence the particular form 
in which the power of faith is here developed. 

The representation thus given of faith and its power is followed 
(Matth. xxi. 22) by the assurance that believing prayer will be 
heard. The mode of transition in Matthew exhibits clearly the 
connexion of the ideas. Faith is conceived as the principle of the 
Christian life in general, and is further set forth as the condition of 
meeting the most difficult requirements. Even the overturning of 
mountains is to be viewed as something arising from circumstances, 
something necessarily demanded, yet impossible for human power, 
which becomes as such the object of believing prayer, by which the 
suppliant has conferred on him the powers of a higher world. From 
the particular the thought is merely extended to that which is 
general (πάντα ὅσα). As respects, however, the idea that believing 
prayer will be heard, John (xiv. 18; xv. 16; xvi. 24) has given it 
in its complete form, by adding the clause ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μον, in my 
name (comp. on Matth. xviii. 19). In this is assumed the genuine 
origin of prayer from the mind and Spirit of Jesus, and in this very 
origin of the supplication there lies the necessity of its fulfilment. 
For, that which God’s spirit prompts us to ask, he also naturally 
bestows; self-originated prayer cannot arise from faith. The con- 
nexion here obviously again requires that the faith be not viewed as 
mere knowledge, but as a state of the soul from which knowledge 
takes its rise. ‘The specific characteristic, however, of this mental 
state, is susceptibility to the powers of a higher world which lie at 


“the foundation of the whole new life—a life which has faith for its 


root. Hence the expression “all things whatsoever” is only limited 
by faith, and not by the objects of prayer, inasmuch as, according 
to the measure of circumstances, in the kingdom of God things 


© 


Matrurw XXI, 23. 155 


great as well as small, external as well as internal, may be the 
object of believing supplication. 

It would be difficult to tell how the closing verses of Mark (xi. 
25, 26) are adjusted to the context, if the symbolical meaning of 
the withered fig tree were denied. It would in fact be impossible 
to explain how these words (which Matth. vi. 14, 15 has given in the 
Sermon on the Mount, at which passage fuller details may be con- 
sulted) could have been inserted here by the Evangelist, since all 
that precedes and follows stand in such perfect connexion. The best 
course would be to reject the verses entirely as an interpolation. But, 
under the symbolical interpretation, they acquire a beautiful moral 
significancy. The account of the doom of the Jews, from which 
the apostles saw themselves exempted, might have produced in 
them a vain self-sufficiency ; as believing they may perchance have 
cherished in their hearts unholy irritation (εἴ te ἔχετε κατά τινος) 
against their brethren, instead of lowly humiliation because of the 
unmerited grace bestowed upon them. For this reason the Re- 
deemer exhorts them, above all things, to cherish mild and humble 
feeling as the condition of their continuance in grace, and in be- 
lieving prayer. Thus, as we are not for a moment to imagine that 
Israel is wholly cast away (Rom. xi.), so the apostles are just as far 
from being ensured against falling ; and to make them fully aware 
of this insecurity is the object of our Lord in these words. 


§ 5. CoNVERSATIONS OF THE LORD WITH THE PHARISEES, 
(Matth. xxi, 23—xxii. 14; Mark xi. 27—xii. 12; Luke xx. 1-19.) 


In this section there follows an account of the interviews which 
the Redeemer had with the hostile sacerdotal order. Their hatred 
towards the Saviour, and their concern on account of the number. 
of adherents that he found among the people, had risen to the highest 
degree. Fear alone restrained them from laying violent hands upon 
him (Mark xi, 18 ; Luke xix. 47, 48), and they therefore sought to 
catch him by craft. But the spirit of truth and wisdom enabled 
him to put all their malice toshame. In the report of these occur- 
rences given by Matthew, which is very full and minute, two para- 
graphs are to be distinguished ; for in Matth. xxii. 15, ff the 
Pharisees, as well as the Sadducees, are represented as making a 
second attempt. ‘The careful argreement of all three Evangelists 
in these statements is, undoubtedly, a very important argument for 
the correctness of the description. Everything seems to have been 
transacted in the order of the narrative ; though Matthew is more 
full, as he inserts two parables (xxi. 28-32 ; xxii, 1-14) not found in 
them ; while, on the other hand, Luke is the briefest, very rarely 


156 Matrruew ΧΑΧΙ. 23-27. 


(e. g, xx. 35, 36) making any additions peculiar to himself, and in 
one instance leaving an event (Matth. xxii. 34-40) altogether un- 
noticed. Even the verbal agreement of the synoptical writers, in 
these ensuing sections, is often so great that we are here tempted 
to suppose one and the same account as lying at the foundation of 
all the three. But compared with John, the other Evangelists, here 
taken together, give*us but outward pictures. This contemplative 
disciple is the only one who enables us in these latter seasons of 
the Lord’s earthly life, to look into the quiet circle of his followers, 
and into the loving heart which now opened itself to his friends 
without restraint. It may have been too difficult to comprehend the 
external and the internal parts of the Saviour’s life in one represen-. 
tation, especially in its last deeply agitated period ; for this reason 
each was-handed down to us separately, but, on that very ac- 
count, assuredly stamped with so much the more genuineness and 
truth. 

Ver. 23-27.—The abode of the Redeemer, in the last days before 
his sufferings, was divided between Bethany—where he endeavoured . 
to ripen, in the circle of his friends, the scattered germs of the 
hicher life—and the Temple. Here, in the Father’s house, as the 
appropriate place for the labours of the Son (Luke ii, 49), he walked 
and distributed his blessings, as before. (Mark xi. 27, ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ 
περιπατοῦντος αὐτοῦ. Luke xx. 1. διδάσκοντος αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ 
εὐαγγελιζομένου) But to the priests, who hardened their hearts, the 
works of Jesus became the means of condemnation. (John ix. 39, εἰς 
κρίμα ἐγὼ εἰς τὸν κόσμον τοῦτον ἦλθον, iva οἱ βλέποντες τυφλοὶ γένωνται.) 
For, instead of yielding to the Spirit of truth, who spoke through 
him, they banded together to destroy the Witness of the truth. 
At length, one of the ruling party of the priests came up to him, 
and asked for the authority (ἐξουσία) by which he worked. Although 
the questioners are described as members of the highest tribunal 
(οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, of γραμματεῖς, καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, compare the remarks on 
Mattb. xxvi. 8), yet no definite intimation is given that these men 
came, not in their personal capacity, but as a deputation of the col- 
lege. Hence we cannot regard this occurrence as altogether parallel 
with that which is related respecting the Baptist (John i. 19), to 
whom priests came, who were officially deputed to interrogate him 
in reference to his prophetic office. At the same time it is not im- 
possible that the persons who thus questioned the Lord were ex- 
pressly delegated by the Sanhedrim, and if that were the case, it 
does not appear how this query, as such, can have involved anything 
false. Indeed, according to the Mosaic law itself, directions were 
given for the testing of prophets, amongst whom, in the wider sense, 
the Messiah was to be reckoned as the Prophet of all prophets (Deut. 
xviii. 18), According to this provision, it was open for every mem- 


MarrHew XXI. 23-27. 157 


ber of the Israelitish people to try the prophet, upon his appearance, 
by the standard of God’s word ; how much more for that body in 
which, according to the Mosaic constitution, the political and eccle- 
siastical jurisdictions were concentrated ! (Comp. Deut. xii. 1, ff; 
xviii, 20, ff.; Ezek. xii. 1, ff) The reply of Jesus then can but 
surprise us, especially if we regard the interrogators as an officially- 
appointed deputation from the Sanhedrim, and thus from the gov- 
ernment. For it would seem that, if every one (and consequently 
the Sanhedrim above all) possessed the right to obtain information 
as to the authority of the prophet, the Redeemer ought to have an- 
swered their inquiry, and not to have perplexed them by putting 
another question in opposition to it. But this difficulty is removed 
by the remarks which follow. According to the Mosaic regulations, 
neither the people, nor the college, nor an individual, were to be 
placed above the rank of the prophet; on the contrary, the pro- 
phets themselves were to be the organs of the Divine Spirit, and 
from them therefore the determining influence was to proceed. At 
the same time, however, the prophet certainly was to be, as it were, 
controlled by the body of the people, and by every individual 
as a member of the body, in order to guard against abuses of the 
gift of prophecy. The passages already adduced shew that two 
cases were possible in which the prophets were not to be obeyed, 
but were liable toa severe punishment. (Comp. J. D. Michaelis, 
Mos. Recht. B. 5, s. 181, ff) The cases were these ; either that the 
prophet himself traced his authority to another god (for example, 
to Baal) as the true one ; or that, although he appealed to Jehovah, 
he could not prove his authority by miracle and prophecy. <Accord- 
ing to the wise appointment of God, no prophet could rise without 
such evidence of his Divine mission, Men, in their state of sinfulness, 
needed not only the communication of the truth but also a testimony 
to the truth communicated, which could not be mistaken ;—and 
both of these were furnished by the prophets.* Thus no other 
means of testing the prophet was afforded but to question him re- 
specting the proof of his authority. Hence the Sanhedrists sent to 
John the Baptist (John i. 19), and John explained to them that he 
was the forerunner of the Messiah, of whose presence amongst the 
people he prophesied. John himself also sent to Christ in a time 
of temptation (Matth. xi. 1, ff), and so also now the Pharisees 
make their inquiry, so far as the form is concerned in proper order. 
For the words ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ, by what authority, referred to the 
question, whether the commission of the interrogated prophet to 

* On this account the Lord said: “If Ido not the works of my Father, believe me 
not. But if I do, believe my works.” (John x. 37, 38.) At the same time, these words 
are not to be taken without the others—“ He that is of God heareth God’s word” (John 


viii. 47); for only the works andthe truth, in connexion, have the power of proof 
(Comp. the observations on Matth. iv. 12.) 


158 MattrHew XXI, 23-27. 


teach was derived from the true God or from a false one ; the other 
words, τίς ao ἔδωκε τὴν ἐξουσίαν, who gave thee, etc., conveyed the 
query, whether the prophet himself, to whom it was put, professed 
to have received his appointment immediately from God, or through 
any medium—as, for example, the disciples went about and pro- 
claimed, in the name of Jesus, the approach of the kingdom of 
God. But with all this outward regularity, the spirit of the question 
proposed by the Pharisees was as impure as its form was faultless. 
They asked it, not at all from necessity and uncertainty respecting 
the vocation of Christ, for themselves and for the people, but from 
malice. They had felt the power of the truth that had proceeded 
from him in their hearts ; they had seen enough of miracles wrought 
by him, and they knew that his commission was proved ;* in spite 
of this, they represented themselves as uncertain, and sought to in- 
volve Jesus in perplexity. But it may be asked what harm could 
this question do? Had he replied, ‘‘ by the authority of God,” 
it would not, indeed, have injured him with the people, who were 
favourably disposed towards him (Matth. xxi. 46), and just as little 
could the priests have derived from it anything by which to con- 
demn him. Doubtless, however, the Pharisees wished to induce 
him to declare himself to be the Son of God.t This was regarded 
by the Jews of that day (John x.)—who did not rightly understand 
the word of God in the Old Testament—as blasphemy against 
God; and for the purpose of being able to accuse him of this 
they fixed upon an apparently legal question, to which they thought 
they might expect such an answer as they desired. On account of 
this hypocritical state of mind the Redeemer justly rejected the 
question,t and instead of it, proposed another to them, which, on 
the one hand, was adapted to awaken in themselves the conscious- 
ness of sin, were that possible—and on the other, to direct the at- 
tention of the people to the insincerity of their leaders. The Lord 
asked them respecting the office of John. (The proper office of 
John may be regarded as concentrated in his baptism, that being 
the form of his ministy.) They had interrogated this messenger of 
God concerning his office by a formal deputation ; he had answered 

* Comp. John iii. 2, the language of the ἄρχων Nicodemus: οὐδεὶς δύναται ταῦτα τὰ 
σημεῖα ποιεῖν, ἃ σὺ ποιεῖς, ἐὰν μὴ ἡ ὁ Θεὺς μετ’ αὐτοῦ. Here is expressed the acknow- 
ledgment of the truth, in a well-disposed member of the Sanhedrim. 

+ As, according to John viii. 17, Christ adduces two witnesses for himself, himself 
and the Father. The following is to be regarded as the difference between Christ and 
tue prophets :—they acted in the power of God, as filled (at times) by his Spirit; but 
the Lord acted and wrought in his own name, because he is himself the permanent reve- 
lation of God. Thus the Redeemer himself immediately afterwards (in the parable 
Matth, xxi. 33, ff.) represents his relation to them as that of υἱός to the δοῦλοι. 

1 Hengstenberg (Christol. vol. iii. Ὁ. 484) truly observes, that in this counter-ques- 


tion the answer to theirs lay concealed; for the Pharisees yery well knew what witness 
John had g’yen of Jesus. (Comp. the remarks on John i. 19, ff.) 


Matrurw XXI. 28-32, 159 


them and given them a σημεῖον, sign (nix), by which they might test 
the true divinity of his commission, vizi—that the Messiah was 
amongst them (John 1. 26). Now, instead of coming, in accordance 
with this evidence, to be baptized by John, and earnestly seeking 
the Messiah pointed out by him, these false shepherds left John to 
his fate, and allowed the people, whom they ought to have instructed 
concerning the visitation of God, to remain in perplexity. This 
hypocritical insincerity the Lord exposes. Thus his counter-ques- 
tion is not to be viewed merely as a rejection of theirs, but as con- 
veying a positive censure of the Pharisees. They might answer 
as they would—their duplicity came to light; for even the οὐκ 
οἴδαμεν, we know not, was a falsehood, since, after the official 
despatch of the deputation, they knew perfectly well who he was. 
Hence he also severely rebukes them for their dissimulation, ver. 32, 
because they refused the repentance and faith which John and the 
Redeemer preached to them, lest they should lose their theocratic 
dominion. 

Ver. 28-32.—The following parable contains within itself its 
reference to the context (ver. 31, 32), and therefore also its own in- 
terpretation, For the purpose of pointing out to the Pharisees, in 
the most striking manner, their insincerity in their trials of the pro- 
phets, and to shew them that they sought only prophets like them- 
selves, but by no means true messengers of the holy God, he con- 
trasts their behaviour to the Baptist, as the professed representative 
of the righteousness of the Old Covenant, with the conduct of the 
unrighteous (respecting the antithesis, compare the remarks on 
Luke xv. 1, ff), and indicates their different relations to the king- 
dom of God (as a sphere of life already spiritually existing and 
manifesting itself in operation). The Lord compares the two classes 
(just as in Luke xv. 1, ff.) to two sons, whom the father sends into 
his vineyard. (Comp. the exposition of Matth. xx. 1.) The open 
ἀδικία, unrighteousness, of the one is soon changed into genuine re- 
pentance and true inward righteousness springing from thence ; the 
seeming external righteousness of the other soon discloses itself as 
open unrighteousness. The call to labour in the vineyard of God 
was addressed to both parties (figuratively represented by the two 
sons), not only by conscience, but also through the revelation of the 
law, upon the fulfilment of which the Pharisees (so far as respects 
the external part of it) entered. The voice of John was intended 
as a summons to repentance for both ; but one party alone availed 
themselves of it ; the other disregarded it in their unbelief. Hence 
the character of the publicans and harlots is not to be taken as hyper- 
bolical ; on the contrary, these are named as the representatives of all 
forms of common worldliness and gross sin. ‘Those who were legally 
strict scorned the others as the unrighteous, and regarded themselves 


¢ 
a 


ν᾿ 


160 Matrruew ΧΑΧΙ, 28-32. 


as the natural possessors of the kingdom, from which they thought sin- 
ners were excluded. This view of their relation to the kingdom of 
God is combatted by the Redeemer in the words before us. The 
pride of self-righteousness brings with it an icy coldness and unsus- 
ceptibility, more difficult to be won to the kingdom of love, than a 
mind which, through open sin, is led to the humble consciousness 
of its misery. The description given of the Baptist, ‘“ came (walk- 
ing) in the way of righteousness” (ἦλθεν ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης 501]. πο- 
pevouevoc), indicates the affinity between the form of his religious 
life and that in which the Pharisees moved ; by which the guilt of 
their unbelief appears more heinous. So little were they earnest 
and strict in their legal righteousness, that they not only failed to 
perceive the peculiar new form of life in Christ, and were unable to 
appropriate it to themselves, but the austere J ohn made the mat- 
ter too serious for them. (Comp. the remarks on Matth. x1. 18.) 
The expression, προάγουσιν ὑμᾶς, σο before you (ver 31), is by no 
means to be understood as absolutely denying the possibility of 
Pharisees and Scribes entering the kingdom of God ; for in ver, 32, 
the words ὑμεῖς δὲ ἰδόντες x. τ. A. contain an intimation of the possi- 
bility of passing into a different state, although it was to be lament- 
ed that such a change had not really taken place. (Comp. the sim- 
ilar representation in the parable, Luke xv. 81, 82. There is no 
essential difference between the term μεταμελεῖσθαι, employed here, 
and μετανοεῖν ; only, the latter expression is the more profound, 
since it points to the νοῦς and the change occurring there.) As re- 
gards the criticism of this passage, ver. 29, 30 are, in several Codices 
(and amongst others in B.), and in several translations, arranged 
differently ; so that it is said of the first son, ἐγὼ κύριε, καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλ- 


ae θεν, and of the other, οὐ θέλω, ὕστερον δὲ πο αν: λη θελα ἀπῆλθεν. This 


[ change of order is incompatible with the parable ; because, if the 


\first had promised to go, there would have been no reason for send- 


ing the other.* What has led to the alteration, it is indeed 
difficult to say. Hither it is a mere error of the transcribers, or it 
has arisen from the relation of the two sons to the Jews and Gentiles, 
according to which it appeared that the one who represented the 
Jews should stand first, because they were first called into the king- 
dom of God. This, evidently, is not the primary reference ; but a 
relation analogous to that between Pharisees and Publicans appears 
also between Jews and Gentiles ; on which account we find ideas 
occurring (comp. Rom. x. 20, 21) in regard to the Jews and Gentiles, 
quite correspondent with those expressed as descriptive of the two 
parties here. Hence, in the subsequent parable (Matth. xxi. 41-48), 


_ * Tt is not necessary to suppose that the sending of one was dependent on tho 
consent or refusal of the other. The order of the clauses therefore seems imma 
terial —[K. 


MatrHew X XI, 28-32. 161 


the Lord passes on to this so obvious antithesis. (The parable is 
true also in respect to δίκαιοι and ἄδικοι generally, in all times and 
under all circumstances. Comp. the observations on Luke v. 31.) 

The following parable of the vineyard (Matth. xxi, 33-46) also 
belongs to this connexion, as is shewn by the harmony of all the 
three accounts in the position of the parable, as well as in its form. 
Mark, however, furnishes rather more details (xii. 5, 6) in the nar- 
rative itself ; whilst he is briefer in the application, where Matthew 
and Luke are more copious. One difference appears in the account, 
viz., that according to Matthew and Mark, this parable was directed 
to the Pharisees, as was also the subsequent one (Matth. xxii. 1, ff.); 
whereas, according to Luke xx. 9, it is addressed to the people. On 
this very account also, Luke (ver. 16) has an expression which can- 
not well be referred to the Pharisees, but is appropriate only to the 
positicn of the people. However, since Luke observes, at the con- 
clusion (ver. 19), that the Pharisees well understood the parable, 
and were in consequence enraged, the difference between the narra- 
tors consists only in this: that, whilst the parables were spoken in 
the presence of both parties—the people and the Pharisees—Mat- 
thew and Mark exhibit more prominently their reference to the lat- 
ter, Luke to the former. But as both references were intended to 
be involved, the accounts mutually supplement each other. The 
correctness of the position in which the parable occurs, is still further 
supported by the connexion with what precedes. It immediately 
follows the foregoing parable, but it cuts far more deeply and keenly. 
The disobedient persons—who, according to the former parable, 
hypocritically acceded to the command of the Lord that bade them 
go and labour—here appear as the murderers of those who went in 
sincere obedience. As the representativesof the whole people, they 
are called the husbandmen (γεωργοί) of the Divine vineyard ; and 
now their inquiry after the authority of the prophets (Matth. xxi. 
23)—in which they seemed to express a concern for the cause of 
God—appears in the most flagrant contrast with the fact that they 
are the very murderers of the prophets, nay, even of the Son of God 
himself, and the treacherous robbers of his kingdom. Hence, their 
dissimulation and lust of power are in this parable exposed, and the 
atrocious results unveiled. According to the parabolic description, 
they were compelled to pronounce their own condemnation and 
leave the vineyard to be given to others. From verse 42 onwards, 
the Redeemer himself explains the meaning of the parable, and re- 
fers them to the prophecies of the Old Testament. The rejecters of 
the prophets are consequently proved to be unfit and most culpable 
examiners ; for the very thing which they reject is that which God 
has chosen. 

Respecting the interpretation of the parable as a whole, there 

Vou, I.—11 


162 Matruew XXI. 33. 


can be no essential difference of opinion ; the relation of the servants 
(δοῦλοι) and of the son to the householder (οἰκοδεσπότης), to his 
vineyard (ἀμπελών) and the husbandmen (γεωργοί), cannot be mis- 
taken. But how far the single features may be applicable, is, in 
this case, as in that of parables generally, a difficult question. Here 
no boundary line can be drawn throughout with certainty ; for the 
acuteness of the mind of the expositor, in discerning remote rela- 
tions, depends upon the degree of his advancement in the spiritual 
life. At the same time reverence for the word of the Lord naturally 
leads us to take the greatest possible care that we avail ourselves ot 
the individual features of the parable ; for the perfection of the 
parable depends upon the copiousness of the references included in 
it. This parable has an Old Testament basis in Isaiah vy. 1, ff. on 
which the Lord has founded a further expansion. 

Ver, 833.—In the first description, Christ strictly follows Isaiah, 
and thus at once awakens in his hearers the consciousness that he 
does not aim at putting forward anything dissevered from the sacred 
ground of the Old Testament, but rather connects himself with it in 
the closest manner ; by this very circumstance, however, he rebukes 
his adversaries. The relation of the householder—the Founder and 
Lord of the vineyard—to the son (ver. 37), clearly shews that the 
former means God. (Gesenius, in his remarks on Isaiah v. 1, ap- 
pears to understand the +, who possesses the 5:3, as signifying 
Israel ; but according to ver. 7, the byw: m2 is the vineyard, and 
hence n‘xax minis the possessor. Now the first and second » 
cannot be referred to different persons ; they both relate to God as 
si, The prophet, therefore, speaks of God as his friend, and sings 
the lamentation over the unfruitful vineyard.) But whom does the 
vineyard (ἀμπελών) designate ? It is natural, in the first place, to 
suppose the Jews (Isaiah v. 7) ; the Pharisees and Scribes being 
then the husbandmen. But, ver. 43, the vineyard is given to an- 
other nation (ἔθνος) ; and if this be referred to the Gentiles, an in- 
congruity seems to arise—for it surely cannot be said that Israel 
was transferred to the Gentiles (as γεωργοί). Meanwhile this diffi- 
culty vanishes, if we understand, by the vineyard, the kingdom of 
God ; tor, Inasmuch as this was at the first identical with Israel, 
the vineyard certainly is also Israel ; but that this relation was not 
a necessary one, was shewn by what took place afterwards. Ata 
subsequent period the kingdom of God was extended to the Gen- 
tiles, and the vineyard then consisted of believers among Jews and 
Gentiles. At all events the vineyard is viewed as distinct from the 
husbandmen ; the former signifies the mass to be guided and in- 
structed ; the latter are the guides and teachers. The charge of 
the spiritual instruction and training of the people, under the Old 
Testament, was in the hands of the Pharisees and Scribes, so that, 


Marruew XXI, 38. 163 


in the next place, these are to be understood by the husbandmen 
(γεωργοί). The description of the arrangement of the vineyard may, 
as a whole, only be intended to express the idea of care and pains 
bestowed by God in founding his kingdom amongst men; at the 
same time the φραγμὸν περιτιθέναι, throwing round a hedge, has 
assuredly a reference to the Mosaic law (called, Ephes, ii. 14, μεσό- 
ToLyov τοῦ φραγμοῦν), too special to be regarded as accidental. 

(Ληνός 3p2, wine-press, Mark has ὑπολήνιον, which means the 
trough that stands under the wine-press, and collects the wine as it 
is pressed out. Where the ground was rocky, it was usual to ex- 
cavate an opening for this purpose in the rock. The word πύργος 
== ὅπλ, signifies a small watch-house, which belonged to the com- 
plete furnishing of an oriental garden.) 

The manifest activity of the Lord (ἐφύτευσε) is plainly distinguish- 
ed from his withdrawment (ἀπεδήμησεν). Luke represents the lat- 
ter as long continued (χρόνους ἱκανούς). This antithesis is obviously 
intended to denote the different relations of God to the people of 
Israel in different periods of their history. The time when the law 
was given from Sinai, when the Lord of the world visibly mani- 
fested himself to the people, and made known his sacred commands 
by Moses, was that in which the whole was planted and arranged. 
From that time he did not again visit his people in a similar man- 
ner ; he awaited the development of the implanted germs, under 
the guidance of the priests to whom that development was in- 
trusted. 

Ver. 34-36.—Still the Lord did visit his people, even during this 
withdrawment, by his messengers. The δοῦλοι, servants (the pro- 
phets) appear as enjoying immediate proximity to the Lord, and 
only sent for special purposes to the husbandmen, According to 
this parable it appears that the purpose was to ask for the fruits, 
(Mark and Luke indicate by their expressions, παρά, ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν, 
that the vineyard was to be regarded as let for a part of the pro- 
duce.) These required fruits are by no means to be referred to cer- 
tain ἔργα, works, or a state of integrity and rectitude ; but rather 
to repentance (μετάνοια), and the inward desire after that true, 
spiritual righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) which the law could not produce. 
This, however, does not for a moment imply that the law did not 
tend to righteousness ; it pruned away the gross excrescences of sin, 
and exposed its internal heinousness. Hence a righteousness of the 
law (δικαιοσύνη κατὰ νόμον) might be produced under the Old Testa- 
ment, as καρπός. But it was necessary that this, to be satisfactory, 
should be based upon the felt need of redemption (Rom. iii. 20). Ac- 
cordingly here the ‘‘ servants” appear as those who search out their 
spiritual wants that they may satisfy them with the promise of the 
coming Saviour. But these messengers of grace were persecuted 


164 MattHew XXI. 37-39. 


and killed by the unfaithful ‘“ hushandmen,” who had used their vo- 
cations for wicked purposes. (Comp. Heb. xi.) In this part of the 
parable the accounts of the Evangelists are essentially harmonious. 
Matthew, however, makes several of the servants come af once, 
whilst, according to Mark and Luke, one is sent after another ; two 
different forms of representation, each of which has its truth. And 
further, Mark and Luke carry the idea of the persecution of God’s 
messengers through a regular gradation ; Matthew treats it more 
simply. In Mark, we have first the ἀπέστειλαν κενόν, sent him 
away empty, then the ἀπέστειλαν ἠτιμωμένον, sent him away dishon- 
oured, and lastly ἀπέκτειναν, slew him. Luke, however, does not 
go beyond the τραυματίζειν, wounding. (The word κεφαλαιόω signifies 
literally to divide into sections = ἀνακεφαλαιόω; then, to strike on 
the head, to wound the head. Not = κεφαλίζω, to decapitate, as 
Passow says in his Lexicon.) 

Ver. 37, 38.—Up to this point the parable referred rather to the 
past ; now it relates to the future, and acquires a prophetic signifi- 
cation. With the servants is contrasted the Son, whom the Lord of 
the vineyard sent last (ἔσχατον, Mark xii. 6), but at whose appear- 
ing the sin of the husbandmen manifested itself in its most heinous 
form. From lust of power they murdered the Son also, that they 
might appropriate the possession, Here the Lord tells them what 
the Pharisees previously wished to ascertain, that he was the only- 
begotten Son of the Father, the true heir of the kingdom of God. 
This, however, he communicated in such a manner that they could 
not pervert his declaration to their wicked designs, but were com- 
pelled by it to pronounce their own condemnation. 

(The designations of the Son as the only [ἕνα viov ἕχων = μονο- 
γενής] and the beloved [ἀγαπητός = “55] are intended to strengthen 
the contrast between him and the “ servants,” and have reference to 
the peculiar relation of Christ as the Son of God to the Father. 
To Christ as such belongs the inheritance (KAnpovouia), as nin nbn 
in the highest sense. The heavenly kingdom, indeed, never can be 
taken from the Son of God ; but the impure representatives of the 
Mosaic theocracy, blinded by their impurity, imagined that they 
could secure the stability of their external kingdom, the design of 
which was to prepare the way for the heavenly kingdom about to be 
founded on the earth ; and therefore they killed the Saviour, whose 
spirituality was in direct opposition to their worldliness. Concerning 
ἐντρέπεσθαι, comp. the remarks on Luke xviii. 2.) 

Ver. 39.—All the three Evangelists uniformly state that the Son 
was put to death, without the vineyard (ἔξω τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος.) Here 
it is very natural to suppose a parallel with the Redeemer, of whom 
Scripture expressly says that he was led forth without the gate 
(comp. John xix. 17; Heb. xiii. 12, 13). It is true the metaphor 


Marruew XXI. 40, 41. 165 


does not appear perfectly consistent, because the vineyard does not 
mean Jerusalem, but the whole theocratic constitution. However, 
Zion was a type of the theocracy, and the idea represented by the 
act of leading out of the gate (as in the Pentateuch expulsion from 
the camp) is no other than that of exclusion from the people of 
God and from their blessings. Hence we may regard this feature 
also of the parable as containing a prophetic intimation. 

Ver. 40, 41.—The case is precisely similar in reference to the 
coming of the Lord of the vineyard, which is mentioned only by 
Matthew. The reference of the expression to the appearing of 
Christ seems unsuitable, because it is not the Son whom Matthew 
represents as returning, but the Father, who (according to ver. 33) 
is Lord of the vineyard. But the hidden Father, who is himself in- 
visible, always reveals himself in the Son; as on Sinai, in the pil- 
lars of cloud and fire, he made himself known in the eternal Word, 
so he manifests himself at the end of the days in the glorified Re- 
deemer. ‘l'hus the reference, in the coming of the Lord of the vine- 
yard, to the return of Christ, is perfectly admissible ; only, there is 
an omission of one particular point, viz. that, in the Son, the Lord 
will manifest himself to his adversaries. If, however the words “‘when 
the Lord cometh,” be regarded as relating to the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, the case remains the same ; since this judgment upon Israel is a 
type of the coming (παρουσία) of the Son (comp. the remarks on 
Matth. xxiv. 1). With the punishment of the old γεωργοί, hus- 
bandmen, will then be associated the selection of others, who 
promise to accomplish the purposes of the owner. (The phrase, 
κακοὺς κακῶς ἀπολέσαι, is a mode of expression not uncommon with 
the profane writers, Comp. the passages in Wetstein.) According 
to Luke xx. 16, the people (to whom, according to ver. 9, the para- 
ble was addressed) understood very well the feature which repre- 
sented that the vineyard would be given to other husbandmen ; and 
expressed, in a simple natural manner the wish that such a judg- 
ment upon Israel might be averted. (The μὴ γένοιτο corresponds 
with the Hebrew bn). (The Pharisees, however, Matth. xxi. 41), 
answered quite in harmony with the spirit of the parable. Since 
it cannot be supposed that the meaning of the parable escaped them, 
their agreement with it only shews a craftiness, which led them to 
affect ingenuousness where they dared not offer contradiction. The 
form of the conversation, as given subsequently by Matthew is quite in 
accordance with this view ; for here the Redeemer openly declares 
that which they, with feigned simplicity, pretended not to have un- 
derstood. Mark and Luke give the sequel in an abbreviated shape, 
only presenting in a question the reference to the same passage of 
the Old Testament with which Matthew connects his explanation 
of the parable. 


166 MarTrnew XXI, 42, 43. 


Ver. 42, 43.—The passage to which the Redeemer refers is taken 
from Ps, cxviii. 22, 23. Matthew and Mark here exactly follow the 
LXX. Luke does not give the quotation so entire. We have al- 
ready seen (Matth. xxi. 9) that the Jews applied this Psalm to the 
Messiah, (Comp. de Wette on Ps. cxviii., who also finds, in the 
use of words from this Psalm, at the entrance of Jesus, an intima- 
tion that it was interpreted as Messianic in the time of Christ.) 
Here the Saviour confirms this view, since he applies the words from 
this Psalm to himself. Primarily, the Psalm describes a victorious 
king, who, in the power of Jehovah, triumphs over all his enemies. 
(it is difficult to define the particular king referred to, but the Psalm 
cannot, in any case, belong to the time of the Maccabees [as de Wette 
thinks probable], because the collection of Psalms was certainly 
finished at an earlier period.) But in this victory of the pious ruler, 
there is reflected the most sublime conquest of the most exalted 
Prince. The same verses of this Psalm are quoted also in Acts iv. 
11; Ephes. 11. 20; 1 Pet. 1. 6. The passage here quoted has in 
its bearing a close connexion with the parable. With a mere change 
of metaphor (comp. the remarks on Matth. xvi. 18), the οἰκοδομοῦντες, 
builders, answer to the γεωργοί, husbandmen, the λίθος, stone, to the 
servants and the Son, the ἀποδοκιμάζειν, rejecting, to the ἀποκτείνειν, 
slaying. ‘There is but one point of difference, viz. the simile of 
the Psalmist expressly adds to the ἀποδοκιμάζειν the fact that that 
which was rejected is chosen; an idea of which the previous parable 
gave only a slight hint, in the judgment inflicted by the Father. 
(Κεφαλὴ γωνίας corresponds to the Hebrew 723 %X5, corner stone, the 
support of the whole building.) In the concluding words of the 
verse, this election of that which was refused by men, is ascribed to 
the Lord, and extolled as worthy of wonder. The life of David, as 
a type of the Messiah, was in consistency with this thought. (The 
feminine forms αὕτη, θαυμαστή, are to be explained according to the 
Hebrew, where the neuter is expressed by the feminine. The word 
αὕτη is equal to mxs, and the following θαυμαστή is formed after αὕτη. 
In the version of the LXX., this peculiarity frequently occurs ; for 
example, 1 Sam. iv. 7; Ps, xxvii. 4.) Matthew here adds a reference to 
the parable, which indicates its interpretation. (‘The words διὰ τοῦτο 
seem to stand only in a loose connexion with what precedes ; they 
serve to unite with that the idea, which, although not expressed, is 
necessarily involved in the simile, that the builders who rejected the 
costly stone, were themselves rejected.) The vineyard now plainly 
appears as the kingdom of God, which is thus recognized as already 
existing—in its germ—in the Old Testament. The duties and cares 
associated with the awakening and quickening of the heavenly life 
in mankind, which, up to the time of Christ, had been devolved upon 
the Jews, should now be committed to an ἔθνος, nation, yielding true 


Matruew XXI, 44-46; XXII. 1. 167 


fruits. The singular here indicates that we are not to understand, 
by this term, the Gentiles strictly (ἔθνη — o%s); although at the 
same time, they are not to be regarded as excluded. This ἔθνος is 
the community of believers, consisting in part of Jews, but princi- 
pally of Gentiles. ΤῸ these the kingdom was henceforth to be in- 
trusted, and thus they would take the place of Israel according to the 
flesh. The words, δοθήσεται ἔθνει ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς, 
shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, thus un- 
derstood, have their exact literal signification. What could not be 
said of any one Gentile nation—that it would certainly bring forth 
the true fruits—is perfectly applicable to the community of believers, 
whose nature it is to produce the genuine fruits of faith. 

Ver. 44.—The words of this verse appear only to have been re- 
ceived into the text of Matthew from that of Luke. For although 
the number of the critical authorities who omit the verse in Mat- 
thew, is not very great, yet it isso utterly unsuited to the connexion, 
as to render it probable that it is precisely the few authorities which 
have preserved the correct reading. If the words in Matthew be 
genuine, they ought at least to be placed before ver. 43; but how 
such a change in the position of the verses can have arisen in the 
manuscripts, it is impossible to shew. 

As tothe meaning of this verse ; it expresses the punishment 
of the perverse builders. The metaphor of the stone is retained in 
allusion to the passage already cited (from Ps. exviii.), and this 
stone is described as bringing destruction, This description is sup- 
ported by passages, such as Isaiah viii. 14, 15, Dan. 11, 45, In the 
first part of the verse, the stone appears as occasioning the fall, and 
the destruction thence resulting, through the act of him who falls 
(similarly Luke ii. 34); in the second part, inversely, the stone is 
represented as destroying by its own movement. 

(Under the figure of a piece of rock which—without being 
touched—loosens itself and hurls itself down, shattering everything 
it encounters, Daniel [loc. cit.] describes the destructive power of 
the kingdom of God and its representative, the Messiah, put forth 
against the world of evil.—vv6Adw, to smash, to dash to atoms.— 
Λικμάω literally to purify the corn, from Accudc, then to separate, 
sever, divide in pieces generally. This is the only place in the New 
Testament where these two expressions occur.) 

Ver, 45, 46.—This threatening rebuke the Pharisees, of course, 
well understood ; but as they would not yield to it in true conver- 
sion, it excited their bitterest anger. Still, so long as the people 
adhered to Christ, and regarded him as a Prophet, they could 
not venture upon any violence. (Comp. Luke xix. 47, 48; Mark 
xi. 18.) 

Chap. xxii, 1.—The narratives of Mark and Luke here conclude 


168 MattrHew XXII. 1. 


the conversation of the Redeemer with the Pharisees, and imme- 
diately commence the accounts of the new attempt which they made 
to catch the Lord in his words. Matthew, on the contrary, adds 
another parable ; and this again is expressly understood as addressed 
to the Pharisees (πάλιν εἶπεν αὐτ οἵ ς). The parable of the banquet 
harmonizes well in one part with the context ; for the murder of 
the servants (δοῦλοι) evidently refers to Matth. xxi. 35, and the call- 
ing of the wicked (πονηροί, ver. 10), as plainly to the publicans and 
harlots (ver. 31). On the other hand, however, another part of the 
parable is not applicable to the Pharisees, namely, that which speaks 
of the one guest who did not wear a wedding garment ; and besides 
this, as the form of the conclusion (ver. 45, 46) appears to close 
the conversation, it may be doubted whether Matthew is correct in 
placing the parable here. This doubt would seem confirmed by a 
comparison of Luke (xiv. 16, ff), who has inserted, in his account 
of the journey, a parable very similar to ours, and which there stands 
in a definite connexion. At the same time, as we have already re- 
marked, the parable in Luke also contains so many points of dif- 
ference from that which Matthew here introduces, that we cannot 
suppose a mere change of form, from one to the other, by tradition. 
For, if such a conjecture were entertained, it would be necessary to 
regard the account of Matthew as containing the result of the 
transformation ; but Matthew’s mode of description is so peculiar, 
that we cannot possibly trace it to the vagueness of tradition. 
Moreover, since in the connexion of Matthew there is no lack of 
references to what has preceded, it may be the most probable sup- 
position that a parable delivered by Christ, at an earlier period, is 
here again brought forward with free alterations. Nor are these 
modifications—especially the paragraph which cannot be applied to 
the Pharisees—by any means out of place ; for the concluding part 
of the parable has its relation to the disciples, who must be regarded 
as listening to Jesus along with the Pharisees. (Luke xx. 9, 16.) 
It was most appropriate that the followers of the Lord should be 
reminded by this solemn admonition, of the importance of close 
union to him ; since the rebuke addressed to the Pharisees might so 
easily lead them to self-complacency. Then the only remaining 
difficulty is that which we find in the foregoing form of conclusion, 
Matth. xxi. 45, 46. It cannot be denied that this would stand bet- 
ter at the end of the parable (xxii. 14); still we may suppose, that 
there was an interruption in the conversation of Christ with the 
Pharisees, and that the parable of the marriage-feast did not come 
immediately after the preceding, although sufficiently near to render 
the references to that intelligible. This hypothesis would satisfac- 
torily explain the previous conclusion, 

The parable now before us, like that of the vineyard has also 


MatrHew XXII, 2. 169 


its Old Testament foundation. In Zephan. i. 7, 8, Prov. ix. 1, ff. 
the Divine wisdom is represented as preparing a feast and inviting 
guests to partake of it.* Similar allegories have been formed, after 
these passages of the Old Testament, by the Rabbins. (Compare 
the passages in Lightfoot and Meuschen.) According to the remarks 
already made, the parable of Matthew consists of two parts, which 
have entirely different relations ; the first part is parallel with the 
parable of the vineyard, and, like that, relates to the Pharisees (the 
κεκλημένοι are = the γεωργοί, and the δοῦλοι stand in the same rela- 
tion to them, as in the previous parable, where they represent the 
prophets); the other, on the contrary, has reference to those who 
have complied with the invitation, namely, the disciples. As regards 
the latter, the sincerity of the Lord’s love is specially conspicuous. 
He did not aim at establishing a party, at drawing adherents or at 
retaining them ; hence he exhibited even towards his own followers 
the full significance of the kingdom of God, at the risk of their for- 
saking him. (Comp. John vi. 67.) 

Ver, 2.—In the several parables addressed by the Saviour simul- 
taneously to the Pharisees, to the people who were favourable towards 
him, and to his disciples, the several ideas which he sought to impress 
on their hearts, became more and more distinctly marked. In the 
parable of the vineyard (Matth. xxi. 37), Christ was designated as 
the Son of the Lord of the vineyard ; here he is expressly called the 
Son of a King, to whom, as such, royal dignity and power belonged. 
That which Luke (xiv. 16) stated in general terms, ‘ a certain man 
made a great supper,” is here more strictly defined. The person who 
gave the entertainment was a king (βασιλεύς), the entertainment 
was a marriage-feast. This last expression is very full of meaning. 
The accession of the Prince to his throne is frequently described as 
a marriage with his people ; and the whole appearance of Jesus in 
his humanity may be viewed as a similar installation into his king- 
dom, of which the entrance of Christ into Jerusalem was the only 
outward representation. According to the usus loguendi of Scrip- 
ture, the accession of Christ to the throne of the kingdom of God 
is the visit of the bridegroom to the bride. (Compare the observa- 
tions on Matth. ix. 15; John iii. 29.) This mutual mixing of the 
two metaphors is to be retained here ; for those whe are invited are, 
in one sense, the subjects of the person who invites, while in another 
sense, they are intended to constitute the bride and the bridegroom. 
Hence the disobedience of the persons invited to the command of 
the king is, viewed in another light, also adultery ; love to the 
world instead of love to God. 

* Tn the first passage we find something akin to Matth. xxii. 12, where one of the 


guests is spoken of as not clothed in a wedding garment (οὐκ évdednuévoc ἔνδυμα γάμου.) 
The strange garment is called, Zephan. i. 8, sp) trnby. 


170 MarttHew XXII. 3-7. 


Ver. 3-6.—Accordingly, it is in perfect keeping with the other 
features of the parable, that the marriage (γάμοι) of the Son is the 
season of the highest joy (to those who follow the κλῆσις), but at the 
same time also an occasion for decision. The invitation involves 
the challenge to discard all other love and be united, in obedient 
affection, with the true Lord alone. The servants, as distinct from 
the parties invited, signify (as in the foregoing parable) the pro- 
phets, who, as members of the nation, are themselves invited, but 
stand in such close connexion with the Lord, that they are regarded 
as belonging to him. So far, however, as others are distinguished from 
the κεκλημένοι, invited (ver. 9), the reference is not to all men, but to 
the κλητοί, called (ver. 14, where the expression is repeated in a literal 
sense), These κλητοί, called, may be, in different senses, either the 
Pharisees, in opposition to the publicans and harlots (Matth, xxi. 
31), or, the Jews in opposition to the Gentiles. Here, according to 
the immediate context, the former sense prevails. The representa- 
tion of the disobedience manifested by the individuals invited is 
very much stronger in Matthew than in the parallel passages of 
Luke, where the parable was drawn forth by milder opposition. 
Here again the sending of the δοῦλοι, servants, takes place at inter- 
vals, and with a gradation in designating the sin of the disobedient 
(as above, Mark xii. 4), in order to intimate that the general call 
(addressed by their connexion with nation and class) is, by the ap- 
pointment of God, brought home specially to every individual, 
(The oriental custom of repeated invitations to great feasts, fur- 
nished an appropriate figure by which to convey these sentiments.) 
The οὐκ ἤθελον, they would not (ver. 4) is followed in gradation by 
the ἀμελήσαντες ἀπῆλθον, they made light of it and went their way 
(ver. 5), and finally, the ὕβρισαν καὶ ἀπέκτειναν, they insulted and 
slew. ‘The first expression conveys only the disinclination of the 
will, the second implies a slighting disregard of the Divine call, the 
last actual resistance. "Αριστον here stands, in the wider sense, for, 
meal generally, = δεῖπνον. It has been adopted in this signification 
by the Rabbins. (Comp. Buxtorf. lex. 5. v. jwems. The expres- 
sion σιτιστά = σιτευτά, means fatted beasts in general, except oxen, 
which are mentioned as the ornaments of a splendid entertainment 
The prepared supper is a metaphor, denoting the spiritual prepar- 
ation of mankind for the reception of the Redeemer. 

Ver. 7.—Whilst Luke (xiv. 24) only adds the threatening that 
none of those who had been invited should taste the supper, Mat- 
thew describes the punishment of the disobedient (who represent 
primarily the Pharisees) in the most fearful terms. (Similarly as 
in the foregoing parable, Luke xvii. 20.) The king, upon seeing 
his favour abused, appears as the Ruler who severely punishes the 


MattrHew XXII, 8-13. rig 


violation of his will ; the persons who were invited appear in the re- 
lation of subjects, and are therefore treated as rebels, 

Ver. 8-10.—The rejection of those who were first invited to the 
prepared feast, is followed (as Luke xiv. 21) by the invitation of 
others ; a circumstance in which we find a parallel with the trans- 
ference of the vineyard to other husbandmen. (Matth. xxi. 41.) 
Matthew, indeed, merely mentions the dispatching of the servants; 
but, according to him, also, the effect is the same as in the other 
case, viz., the filling up of the places. This replacing of the re- 
jected guests, by others who were not primarily appointed to those 
positions, is the same idea as Paul illustrates (Rom. xi.) where he 
represents the cast-off Jews as severed branches of the olive tree, 
into whose places others (the πλήρωμα τῶν ἔθνων) were grafted. The 
statement of Matthew that evil and good (πονηροὶ καὶ ἀγαθοί) were 
called (comp. Matth. xiii. 47) is far more expressive than the repre- 
sentations of Luke. The latter describes those who were called as 
πτωχοί, poor, only, and not as, in part, πονηροί, wicked. This term 
points to the sequel, in which the wickedness of some among the 
called is exhibited. (This is the only instance in which the expres- 
sion διέξοδοι τῶν ὁδῶν occurs in the New Testament. δΔιέξοδος literally 
signifies a passage ; in connexion with ὁδοί it probably means the 
intersection of one street by another ; thus compitum, where men 
are accustomed to congregate.) 

Ver. 11-13.—This second part of the parable, as we have already 
observed (on ver. 1), admits no reference to the Pharisees. It could 
not possibly be said of them that they participated in the mar- 
riage ; they were the very men who did not obey the call. The de- 
sign of the Redeemer, in these words, was to give his disciples (who, 
as such, may be regarded as called, instead of the persons first 
invited) an exhortation to earnestness. 

As regards the simile, it is evident that allusion is made to the 
eastern custom observed at feasts, of distributing costly garments. 
According to this usage, the want of the garment required at the 
feast was criminal, even in the case of ‘the poorest individual, since 
he must have rejected the one offered him, and self-complacently’ 
deemed his own good enough. In resolving the metaphor, we find 
that the garment (as an external decoration) signifies the internal 
adornment of the soul, which we may denominate by one expression, 
righteousness (δικαιοσύνη). (Isaiah [χ]. 10 has the same figure "133 
γῶν, Comp. Rey. xix. 8. The use of the word ἐνδύσασθαι in the 
New Testament, with χριστόν, νέον ἄνθρωπον, ἀγάπην, Rom. xiii. 14, 
Gal. iii. 27, Col. 11. 10, 12, ff, Ephes. iv. 24, has reference to the 
same comparison.) Hence this inward righteousness is not repre- 
sented as anything acquired or self-produced, but as something 
given, imparted, the non-appropriation of which (resulting from 


172 Mattuew XXII. 14. 


self-complacency and vanity, as if our own were sufficient; is the 
very ground of rebuke. Where this righteousness is wanting, 
the necessary consequence is removal from the light of the kingdom 
into darkness. (Concerning the words, σκότος ἐξώτερον κι. τ. λ., com- 
pare the remarks on Matth. viii. 12.) Thus the call (κλῆσις) by no 
means appears as gratia irresistibilis, but as laying claim to free, 
spontaneous choice. Even in the case of those who follow the call, 
sin may remain in the depth of the soul, unless the man wholly 
yields in humble obedience, and along with the invitation, receives 
also the ornament of righteousness offered by the free grace of God. 
This interpretation encounters but one difficulty, namely, how this 
parable is to be reconciled with that of the ten virgins (Matth. xxv. 1, 
ff.). According to the latter, it appears that not only no one with- 
out the wedding-garment—without the array of the Divine righte- 
ousness—but no one remaining without the necessary oil of the 
Spirit, can come into the kingdom of God; whilst, according to 
this parable of the marriage-feast, the πονηρός, wicked (ver. 10) is 
admitted into the kingdom of God. It would, indeed, be the 
shortest method to say that these features are not to be pressed ; but 
they stand in such intimate connexion with the whole substance of 
the parable, that if such points are to be put aside as incidental, 
the entire representation becomes void of meaning. If, however, we 
only distinguish the varied relations in which the kingdom of God 
is presented, these varying representations assume a significance, 
In the passage, Matth. xxv. 1, ff, the kingdom of God is treated 
of in reference to its complete manifestation at the coming of the 
Lord ; this involves the idea of the κρίσις, judgment, separation, for 
the kingdom of God, by means of which all impurities are separated 
from it. In our parable, on the contrary, the subject of discourse 
is the coming of the kingdom of God among men, as introduced by 
the first appearance of the Lord on earth ; in this relation we may 
apply the parable of the net, in which good and bad fish are in- 
cluded (Matth. xii. 47, ff). Thus, the fact of being in the external 
kingdom of God does not by any means, in itself, furnish either the 
right or the certainty of belonging to his spiritual kingdom. As 
there was a Judas amongst the disciples, and a Ham in the ark, so 
in all places and times, while the kingdom of God is in the course 
of its secret development in the present world (αἰὼν οὗτος), there 
appears a wicked man in the circle of believers that are formed from 
time to time. Whether the Redeemer in this parabolic representa- 
tion, thought particularly of Judas, it is hard to affirm, although it 
cannot be positively denied. 

Ver. 14.—According to Matth. xxii. 14, the Redeemer concludes 
this parable also (compare the remarks on Matth. xx, 16) with the 
saying, πολλοί εἰσι κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι dé ἐκλεκτοί, many are called, but few 


Matruew XXII. 14. 173 


chosen, which here requires a closer consideration. As to the mean- 
ing of κλητός, called, the foregoing parable shews plainly enough 
that the term is identical with κεκλημένοι (ver, 3). All, therefore, 
who are reached by the invitation of the prophets to enter the king- 
dom of God, are therein included. Whether they obey the call (κλῆσις 
ἁγία, ἃ Tim.i.9)or not, is not implied in the word κλητός, called ; 
on the contrary, the parable of the marriage-feast sufficiently proves 
that there are persons called who do not obey the call. At the same 
time, the term «Anrot,called, is in some instances applied, especially 
by the Apostle Paul, strictly to those who have complied with the 
call and entered the church of God (Rom. i. 6, 7, viii. 28 ; 1 Cor. i. 
24; Jude ver. 1). (Paul also employs the word κλητός, called, in 
reference to the calling of an individual to a special work in the 
kingdom of God ; for example, Rom. 1. 1; 1 Cor. i. 1, κλητός 
ἀπόστολος ; but this signification needs no further remark here.) In 
many passages of Scripture (Luke xviii. 7; Matth. xxiv. 22, ff.; Rom. 
vill. 83; Col. iii,12; Tit.i.1; 1 Pet.i.1, ii. 9) ἐκλειιτός, chosen, stands 
quite parallel with κλητός, called, as a gencral designation of the 
members of the church, in opposition to the world. The expres- 
sion is, in this sense, syonymous with ἅγιοι, saints, which also, in it- 
self, conveys only the fact of separation from a multitude. In a 
special sense, however, it is applied to angels (1 Tim. vy. 21), to 
Christ (Luke xxiii. 35), and to individual members of the church. 
In these instances it appears to have a more limited meaning than 
κλητός, called, because, while all the chosen are necessarily called, all 
the called are not chosen. This signification occurs only in the saying 
now before us, but in Rev. xvii, 14, and probably Rom. xvi. 18, It 
might be thought that the peculiarity of the ἐκλεκτοί, chosen, is a 
richer endowment with gifts, and hence the appointment to a greater 
work ; in which case, as in the parable of the servants (Matth. xxv. 
14, ff), for example, those to whom more talents were given than to 
the other, would be ἐκλεκτοί. Or, according to the parable before us, 
we might understand this term as designating those who sincerely 
avail themselves of the call (κλῆσις) in opposition to those who 
either despise or neglect it ; or else, while apparently receiving it, 
do not properly employ it. But the words roAAoié εἰσι κλητοί, 
many are called, seem to imply that there are others who are not 
called (the Evangelist does not use the expression οἱ πολλοί, which 
might be taken as bearing much the same signification with πάντες, 
comp. Rom. v. 15 with xviii. 19); while at the same time, the fact 
of not being called is only to be viewed as a relative thing (comp. 
the remarks on Matth. xx. 28), since Scripture knows nothing of 
any positive decree excluding individual men from the kingdom of 
God, but, on the contrary plainly teaches the universality of God’s 
grace (1 John ii. 2; 2 Pet. iii. 9). Itis true, indeed, that the calling 


174 Mattuew XXII, 15. 


of one people takes place at an earlier period, than that of the 
other ; and, among the same people, one individual is called before 
another,* so that thus far, those who are called may be distin- 
guished from those who are not called (but are to be called). Hence 
the vocation, as such, admits of no merit; it isa gift of the free 
grace of God; while, on the other hand, guwz/¢ is involved in its re- 
jection. The guilt of the many called is intimated in the second 
part of the statement, but few chosen (ὀλέγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοῦ. It 
would indeed seem that, since the use made of the κλῆσις is here 
pointed out as the peculiarity of the ἐκλεκτοί, the name is not en- 
tirely appropriate ; it would seem that the more correct expression 
would be faithful (πιστοί), in order to mark the self-activity of man. 
But the improvement of the κλῆσις, call, is also traced to an ἐκλογή, 
election, for the purpose of shewing that faithfulness itself is only 
an effect of grace, since activity on the part of man can only operate 
negatively, and always requires a positive power (namely the Divine) 
to supply its deficiency. The proverb dése// naturally partakes of the 
variable applicability of its parts; and hence we must explain the 
circumstance that here it has reference to the unfaithfulness of those 
who did not embrace the call addressed to them ; whilst in Matth. 
xx. 16, it was applied to those different relations to the kingdom of 
God, the distribution of which depends upon God’s free grace. 


§ 6. NEw CoNVERSATIONS OF JESUS WITH THE PHARISEES 
AND SADDUCEES. 


(Matth, xxii. 15-46; Mark xii. 13-37; Luke xx. 20-44.) 


All the three Evangelists agree in the statement that the Phari- 
sees, soon after the first conversation, made a fresh attempt to em- 
barrass the Redeemer by difficult questions, so as to compromise him 
in the eyes of the people, and thus draw away the affection which 
they entertained for him, Here the accounts are in such exact 
harmony with each other (Luke merely omitting the parallel to 
Matth. xxij. 34, ff; comp. the remarks on Matth. xxi. 23), as to 
leave no doubt that the reports were given in chronological order ; 
especially as the internal character of the conversations is quite 
suited to the last days before the sufferings of the Lord. The in- 
creasing malignity of the Pharisees led them to make use of the 
most difficult cases, that they might put Jesus to the proof, and, if 
possible entangle him in his words. The love of Christ, which in 
contrast with such daring sin, rose to its highest pitch, is manifested 
by the following discourses alike in its gentle form of compassion, 


* This difference in the calls was represented in the parable, Matth. xx. 1, ff 


Martruew XXII. 15, 16. 175 


sympathizing with blindness, and labouring to remove it, and in its 
sacred severity. 

Ver. 15, 16.—We have here a positive statement of that which 
was at least not definitely expressed at the commencement of the 
first conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees (Matth. xxi, 23) 
—that the persons who interrogated Christ were expressly delegated 
by the Sanhedrim for that purpose. The Pharisaic party, who 
ruled the Sanhedrim by their influence, made the formal resolution 
to entrap Christ, through their deputies, by means of artful ques- 
tions, (Ilayidevw — ἀγρεύω, as if to catch in a net.) In order, 
however, to conceal their plan, they sent some of their pupils 
(Matth. xxii. 16), and indeed such as knew how to present an honest 
appearance, as if they came from deeply felt desire, to ask the opinion 
of the Saviour in a difficult case, in which they desired to know 
what was right. (Luke xx. 20, therefore calls them very significantly 
ὑποκρινόμενοι ἑαυτοὺς δικαίους εἷναι, and Jesus subsequently, on the 
same account, calls them ὑποκριταί, An éyxdOetoc is a way-layer, 
lying in ambush [comp. Job xix. 12]. In Sirach viii. 14, the phrase 
occurs, ἐγκαθίζειν ὡς ἔνεδρον τῷ στόματί τινος, which is quite analogous 
to our passage.) 

It is singular, however, that Matthew and Mark agree in stating 
that the Pharisees had united with the Herodians. These adherents 
of the Herodian family generally, and of Herod Antipas in particu- 
lar (Mark i. 6), who, moreover, may have been the immediate 
attendants of the Tetrarch—for he happened to be preseut in Jeru- 
salem at the feast of the Passover (Luke xxiii, 7)—entertained 
political opinions altogether different from those of the Pharisees. 
The latter were necessarily opposed to the Romans in their entire 
aim, and desired the establishment of an independent Jewish power, 
because that would afford them greater certainty of exercising the 
influence which they assumed ; and through their efforts, the mass 
of the people also were, in the highest degree, prejudiced against the 
Roman dominion. On the other hand, the family of Herod, with 
its adherents, had an interest in the very continuance of Ro- 
man government ; for, by this means, they were protected in the 
possession of their power ; and hence they permitted to themselves 
all oppressions, confidently trusting in the Roman legions, who 
stood in readiness to defend them against every outbreak of rebel- 
lion. It was upon the union of these two parties that their plan 
was laid. As Herod and Pilate became friends when the object 
was to put the Holy One of God to death (Luke xxiii. 12), so also 
did the Pharisees and Herodians. The deputies of the two political 
parties were at once to supply the witnesses by whom, whatever 
might be his answer, he should be ruined. It is true a declaration 
against the Romans would have won the attachmeni of the people 


176 Matrurw XXII. 17-22. 


still more ; but the Herodians would then have taken occasion to 
accuse him before the Pagan authorities (Luke xx. 20, tod παραδοῦ- 
vat αὐτὸν τῇ ἀρχῇ καὶ τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦ ἡ γεμ όν ο ς), which the Pharisees 
certainly above all things desired. If, on the contrary, Jesus simply 
declared himself in favour of the Romans, then the Pharisees hoped 
to draw away from him the sympathies of the people, and to be able 
to imprison him without fear. Hence they seek to inveigle the 
Redeemer by insidious language, while they hypocritically praise 
his truthfulness and courage. But he who knew what is in man 
(John ii. 25), perceived their craft (πανουργία), as Luke says, xx. 29. 
(Instead of πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν ---- 8538 πῶ, Matthew and Mark have 
εἰς πρόσωπον βλέπειν, and this does not correspond with 5°32 τ, Num. 
xxiv. 1, which the LXX. correctly translate by ἀποστρέφειν τὸ πρό- 
owrov, It is better to compare ἘΣ 5°32 51%, which is generally used 
in the good sense, to regard any one with favour. Even this phrase, 
however, does not exactly answer to the phrase βλέπειν εἰς πρόσωπον ; 
it would rather be necessary that the words should run: 8.28 52 489, 
—an expression which does not occur.) 

Ver. 17-22.—The way in which the interrogators intended that 
the Lord should be perplexed, is evident from what has preceded. 
But two questions now present themselves. In the first place, how 
did Christ view the relations of the Jewish people to the Romans 
and their representative, the Emperor ? The inquiry “Is it law- 
ful to give tribute to Cesar or not 2” (ἔξεστι δοῦναι κῆνσον ἹΚαίσαρι, 
ἢ ob ;) plainly indicates a reference to the views of the Jewish ultra- 
liberals, of whom the weil-known Judas of Galilee (comp. Joseph. 
Arch. xviii. 1, ff and Acts v. 37) is to be regarded as the fanatic 
chief. This man represented the freedom to which he believed the 
Jewish people called, as consisting in entire exemption from external 
imposts and contributions to the support of worldly government, 
their contributions being due only to God—that is, to the Temple 
and its Pharisaic officials. There was not the slightest ground for 
the support of this fanatical opinion in Scriptnre ; for the Jews 
always had paid taxes to their sovereign, in addition to the Temple 
dues ; and Palestine had also had to raise its tribute as a province 
of Babylon or Syria. Moreover, the passage Deut. xvii. 15, does 
not in itself forbid that a stranger (5539 ws) should reign over 
Israel—indeed the prophets incessantly foretold that the unfaithful 
people would be subjected to foreign rule—the passage only pro-’ 
hibits the Jews from themselves choosing a foreigner as king, while 
it was quite possible that God might, as a punishment, cause them 
to be brought under the dominion of a stranger. Hence it is evi- 
dent that Jesus could not, by any means, coincide with the ultra 
party ; because their rebelliousness was a horrible fruit of sin. Ac- 
cording to the command of God, even an illegitimate and unjust 


Matruew XXII. 22. 1a 


government must be obeyed when it is once established (Rom. xiii. 
1). True, indeed, Jesus was thereby no friend to the Romans (rep- 
resented by the Herodians); for, on the one hand, they had 
assumed dominion over Judea by gross deeds of violence, and, on 
the other, their whole political constitution was unholy, and directly 
opposed to everything Divine. But the Lord saw in their dominion 
over Israel the judgment of God, and therefore viewed it as a 
scourge (like Nebuchadnezzar and his Chaldeans in days before) 
held in God’s hand. And, although this instrument was indeed re- 
pugnant, yet the holiness of him who used it—the Lord of heaven 
and earth—demanded reverence. Now, according to the prophecies, 
even Israel was, as a punishment, not only to be without a king (of 
its own), but at one time, without sacrifice, altar, ephod, and sanc- 
tuary (Hos. ii. 4). True, if the whole people of Israel had embraced 
the Lord in genuine faith, it might be supposed that (according to 
the Philonean mode of representation) the whole nation—through 
the power of the holy life, which would have been developed within 
it—would have overcome its conquerors ; but the Lord, at this time, 
knew too certainly that the Jews were rushing to their own destruc- 
tion (Luke xix. 42, ff.), and saw in the Romans the instrument of 
God for the correction of this blinded people. Thus, when the in- 
terrogators of the Redeemer propounded to him their opposite opin- 
ions—as contraries between which, they thought, he would inevit- 
ably be obliged to choose—he took no part with either. In his 
higher and holy view of things, he acknowledged what was true in 
the sentiments of both parties, ‘but he could tiot be bound by oppo- 
site views, above which he rose so far, 

The next question then is, How did the sive with prudence, 
make known his eatimnente ? He did not give forth abstract 
thoughts respecting the political relations of peoples and states, but 
conveyed his instruction by the sight of the actual material object 
which represented the particular point in question. He requested 
the ordinary coin in which the tax (census) was paid (hence νόμισμα 
κήνσου, Matth. xxii. 19) namely a denarius, to be produced. (A7- 
vap.ov, like κῆνσος was adopted from the Latin language into the 
Greek ; the coin [see Matth. xviii, 28] was worth about three Saxon 
groschen.) This bore the image and name of Cesar, and therefore 
its use involved the silent acknowledgment of the influence of the 
emperor, and with him, of the Romans. (Comp. the passages in 
Lightfoot and Wetstein in loc., which lay down the principle, “‘ He 
whose likeness is borne by the coin is lord of the land.”) But this 
acknowledgment expressed, on the one hand, the consciousness of 
guilt, and, on the other, submission to the will of God ; and, there- 
fore, all this could lead to no other conclusion than that, when so 
much had preceded, nothing but what existed (the payment of trib- 

Vor. II.—12 


178 MarrHew XXII, 22, 


ute to the Emperor) could follow. This idea, however, involved the 
other—that, in the first instance, they ought not to have appropri- 
ated the money of the emperor (but rather have striven after a more 
solemn and holy object), and then there would have been no neces- 
sity for giving to the emperor what, according to the law of justice, 
was the emperor’s. 

After having directed the thoughts of the interrogators tothe facts 
of their present position, and having thus awakened the sense ot 
guilt and the consciousness of deserved punishment, Jesus led their 
minds from that which was temporal to things eternal, and to their 
duties respecting them. To refer the words “to God the things 
which are God’s” (τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ) to the Temple-tax (of half a 
shekel, Exod. xxx. 12), gives an erroneous view of the whole narra- 
tive. For, on the one hand, it would not appear what occasion 
there could be for wonder in the answer—*‘ both must be paid, the 
tribute to the Romans and the tax to the Temple” (the peculiar- 
ity in the procedure of the Saviour would, in that case, have con- 
sisted, not in the sentiment expressed, but in the exhibition of the 
coin; whereas, according to Luke xx. 26, the object of marvel was 
the answer); and on the other, the Pharisees might have made an 
excellent use of such a reply, in order to stigmatize Jesus among 
the peopie as a deserter to Rome, since he certainly stated that the 
tribute must be paid. The word of the Lord is full of spirit and life 
only when it is spiritually apprehended. Jesus contrasts God, as 
the heavenly Sovereign—the King of all kings—with Ceesar, as the 
highest possessor of worldly dominion. The latter, in accordance 
with his character, claims nothing but what is temporal and earthly 
(Mammon), which he only whose heart clings around it, hesitates in 
giving back to its fountain. But God, as Spirit, requires that 
which is spiritual—the heart and the whole being. The inward 
man belongs to God (as that which is outward belongs to the world, 
and to Cesar as its representative), for he bears the image of God 
(εἰκὼν τοῦ Ozod) indelibly impressed upon him, and whatsoever has 
come from God must return to him. Now, these hypocrites resort- 
ed to the Lord, to ascertain how they could act towards Ceesar ; but 
to learn how their immortal souls might be brought to God—to re- 
veal which was the very design of the Saviour’s coming—they 
asked not. This striking contrast presented in the power of the 
Spirit, and uttered with the conquering glance of truth, came home 
with such power to their consciences, that they stood self-convicted 
of their own insincerity ; they experienced the profound truth of the 
sublime sentiment uttered by the Lord ; they felt that their ques- 
tion would have been frivolous even if it had proceeded from hearts 
well-disposed,* but that now it was wicked, because it came from 


* Claudius, in his ingenious remarks on the history of the tributary Penny (Geschichte 


Marruew XXII. 23. | 179 


hearts full of hypocrisy. They may have been sensible that the an- 
swer, ἀπόδοτε τὰ Καίσαρος τῷ Καίσαρι, kai τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ, render 
to Cesar, etc., may be said to involve the law and the prophets 
(Matth xxii. 40) ; in that we can conceive of no Divine law which is 
not included in one part or the other of this sentiment ; because to 
leave what is sinful to the world, and to give that which is eternal 
to God, is the whole secret of godliness. (Comp. on the passage 
Rom. xiii. 7, where Paul seems to have had it in his view.) 

Ver. 23.—According to Matth. xxii. 22, the Pharisees now with- 
drew, and on the same day (ἐν ἐκείνῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ver. 23)—but after an 
interval—the Sadducees came to Jesus. But, as the Pharisees are 
mentioned again subsequently (Matth. xxii, 34-41) the word ἀπῆλθον, 
departed, doubtless can relate only to those among them who had been 
expressly deputed ; it is likely that others remained. According to 
Mark and Luke, the question of the Sadducees immediately follows 
the preceding, and hence the interval of which Matthew speaks is, 
probably, to be regarded as but very brief. The accounts of the 
three Evangelists respecting the conversation of Jesus with the Sad- 
ducees, harmonize in all essentials ; Mark, according to his mode, 
merely giving a somewhat more extended report, although without 
adding any peculiar feature. Luke, on the contrary, gives the an- 
swer of Christ far more fully than either of the others, and com- 
municates therein some peculiar points. 

As regards the relation of Jesus to the Sadducees, the Redeemer 
evidently acknowledges in them a certain goodness of disposition ; 
they were far from the malignity and shamelessness of the Phari- 
sees, but only because they had less interest in doctrinal subjects 
and ecclesiastical affairs. Their god was their belly, and as their 
wealth placed them in a position to indulge their lusts to the full, 
their whole activity was concentrated upon temporal things. Their 
debasement in the pursuit of pleasure, naturally led them to over- 
look everything higher, and, in regard to knowledge, they were far 
behind the Pharisees. They denied the resurrection,* and even the 
reality of the spiritual world? (Acts xxiii, 8); and (like Philo), 
among the Old Testament Scriptures they attached more import- 
ance to the Law than to the Prophets. (Joseph. Arch. xviii. 1. 4. 
vom Zinsgroschen, B ii. 8. 141), very justly says, ‘‘ The whole question, generally, respect- 
ing the justice or injustice of the tribute money was very absurd, and amounted to just 
as rauch as ifan adulterer should ask whether it were right to pay the legal penalty fixed 
against adultery.” The instance of adultery is selected with great appropriateness, for 
the Jews had committed this ~-ry crime, in their unfaithfulness towards the Lord. 

* Mark and Luke express add—for the sake of those readers who might not be 
Jews—that the Sadducees den. / the resurrection. 

+ How they may have exp ed the appearances of angels in the Pentateuch, is in- 
deed doubtful. Neander (Kirct Gesch. Th. i. s. 55) conjectures, with reason, that they 


regarded these appearances mereiy as manifestations of God himself which wero imper- 
sonal, and on that account transitory. (Compare also Dr. Paulus on Luke xx, 27.) 


180 MatrHew XXII. 24-30. 


Bell. Jud, ii. 8, 14). Hence, while Christ declares that they have 
no knowledge of Divine things (Matth. xxii. 29), he does not re- 
fuse to instruct them ; the goodness of their disposition rendered 
it possible that the words might find entrance to their hearts—a re- 
sult far less to be anticipated in the case of the vain and haughty 
Pharisees. 

Ver, 24-28.—The question which they propose to Christ unmis- 
takeably proves the shallowness of their reasonings. The tale which 
they relate (merely a fictitious one) probably formed one of the 
most striking arguments which they were able to adduce against 
the resurrection (ἀνάστασις), the object of their attack; and fox 
this reason it might appear to them worth while to try its effect with 
the famous Prophet of Nazareth. The whole fiction was founded 
upon the Mosaic law, Deut. xxv. 5, ff. concerning the marriage of 
the brother-in-law, which, indeed, occurs as in use before the time 
of Moses, Gen. xxxvili. 6. (The citation is given merely from 
memory, and hence each of the Evangelists quotes it differently.) 
The design of this Mosaic regulation was simply to preserve the 
families (and this was the purport also of the laws respecting 
heiresses—comp. the remarks on the genealogical tables containing 
the lineage of Jesus), the number of which was connected with the 
inheritance in the land of Canaan. On this account, likewise, the 
first-born was regarded as the heir of the deceased (comp. Michaelis 
Mos. Recht. Th. ii. s. 194), and treated as his genuine descendant. 

(The word ἐπιγαμβρεύω, Matth. xxii. 24, literally signifies to ally 
one’s self by marriage, from γαμβρός, which denotes all relationships 
by marriage, as brother-in-law, son-in-law, father-in-law. This is 
the only place where it occurs, and it corresponds with the Hebrew 
535, which usually means to perform an obligatory marriage. Instead 
of ἀναστήσει σπέρμα, the original text has mp2 mmx py-dz man ; the 
LXX. also have retained the word ὄνομα. Σπέρμα, corresponds with 
the*Hebrew 73 in the ordizary signification, posterity.) 

Ver. 29, 30.—The Lord, in his reply, in the first place (accord- 
ing to Matthew and Luke) reproves the unbelief of the Sadducees, 
and then (according to the more copious account of Luke) gives the 
most definite declaration on the particular case before him. Christ 
describes the error of the Sadducees as ignorance of the Scriptures 
and of the power of God. That we are not to understand the lat- 
ter expression as referring to a mere knowledge of the Divine 
omnipotence, which can raise the bodies of the dead, is evident 
from the idea itself. The general doctrine of the almighty power 
of God was not contested by the Sadducees ; they only maintained 
that the raising of the dead should not be regarded as forming a 
part in the operations of God’s omnipotent energy. The know- 
ledge of the power of God is not distinct from knowledge (γνῶσις) 


MartrHew XXII. 29, 80. 181 


generally ; for we cannot conceive of one attribute of God without 
the other; all must be viewed as inseparably connected in the 
Divine essence. And in like manner, the phrase εἰδέναι τὰς γραφάς, 
to know the Scriptures, must not be taken as signifying an acquaint- 
ance with the historical sense of the Scriptures ; for it is quite as 
incredible that the Sadducees should have mistaken this, as that 
they denied the omnipotence of God. The expression denotes 
rather an apprehension of the spiritual contents of the Scrip- 
tures ; and since this presupposes Spirit—and that, Divine Spirit, 
which no one can have without the knowledge of God—the 
knowledge of Scripture is related to the knowledge of God, as the 
effect to the cause. Because they do not know God, they do not 
understand that which is Divine in the Scriptures, knowing only 
what is external, and not having organs for the apprehension of 
anything beyond, (Respecting the ψυχικός [Jude ver. 19, πνεῦμα 
μὴ ἔχων], comp. 1 Cor. i. 14, where it is said, οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ 
πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ.) 

In the next place, in regard to the question itself, the Lord un- 
equivocally replies that the life of those who are raised from the 
dead will be entirely different from earthly life, and hence the diffi- 
culty suggested by his interrogators falls to the ground. Now, in 
this passage, we have, chiefly, an express confirmation of the 
ἀνάστασις, resurrection, which, it is to be observed, we must distin- 
guish from the immortality of the soul. Of the latter, the Scrip- 
tures never speak ; on the contrary, God is called ὁ μόνος ἔχων τὴν 
ἀθανασίαν, he who alone hath immortality (1 Tim. vi. 16). True, 
the doctrine of Scripture recognises an individual continuance of 
the soul (ψυχή) but it always views the separation of the soul 
from the body by death as unnatural, so that even in the case 
of believers, whose spirit and soul live in the light of God, the 
perfection of the body also is earnestly desired. (Rom. viii. 32, 
ἡμεῖς ἀπεκδεχόμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν.) Hence, the 
unclothing of the body—-the condition of the life of the soul with- 
out its organ—is by no means an advanced state for men ; accord- 
ing to the principle—“ corporeity is the end of the works of God,” 
everything seeks its corresponding body. The body of the resurrec- 
tion is a true body (σῶμα) though indeed a spiritual one (πνευματικόν, 
1 Cor. xv. 43, 44). The Redeemer describes as such the corporality 
of those who are raised from the dead ; for he denies, in their case, 
the γαμεῖν (of men) and γαμίζεσθαι (= γαμίσκεσθαι or ἐκγαμίσκεσθαι, of 
women, to be married); whereas both these belong to the natural 
body (σῶμα ψυχικόν), according to its nature. Instead of σώματα, 
bodies, the Lord mentions (in Luke) αἰὼν οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος (respect- 
ing these terms, compare the remarks on Matth. xii. 31), as the 
regions of existence to which the natural and spiritual bodies re- 


182 MartrHew XXII. 29, 30. 


spectively belong. The expression αἰὼν ἐκεῖνος is here equal to 
βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, and denotes the state in which the Divine Spirit 
rules ; on which account also, mention is made of being worthy of 
this αἰών. Wherein this consists, and how it is attained, we are 
not here informed ; but the general view of the doctrine of Scrip- 
ture leads to the conclusion, that faith must be regarded as suscep- 
tibility for grace (χάρις) or the condition of worthiness ; in the sight 
of God, nothing affords worthiness but that which is Divine, that 
which proceeds from himself. (‘‘ Before God nothing avails, but his 
own image.”) The proposition thus stated by the Lord as a doc- 
trine, is supported in what follows (Luke xx. 36) by proofs. It is 
true, the clause with the second γάρ (ἰσάγγελοι γάρ εἰσι), contains only 
a subordinate argument, since its immediate reference is to the pre- 
ceding words, ὠποθανεῖν οὐκέτι δύνανται, they can die no more; but it 
has also an indirect reference to the main thoughts of the passage. 
As regards the argumentative force of the first clause, there can be no 
doubt that this lies in the idea of propagation, involved in the expres- 
sions γαμεῖν, marry, and γαμίσκεσθαι, given in marriage. This is 
appointed by God only for the period during which humanity isin its . 
course of development ; with its perfection, which will exclude every 
form of death, propagation will also cease. It may justly be de- 
duced from this train of thought, that, according to the meaning of 
Christ, the spiritual body will be modified in like manner, and thus 
the difference of sex will not again appear in those who are raised 
from the dead. This, however, can be affirmed with respect only 
to its physical character; so far as the difference of the sexes is 
manifested also in the psychical nature, there is no ground for the idea 
that it will be abolished in the resurrection ; for there is no necessity 
whatever to suppose such an intimate mutual connexion between 
the physical and the psychical as would render it impossible to con- 
ceive of the one without the other. But although this passage 
does not express so mucit, ii does not exclude the conjecture, that, 
in those who are raised from the.dead there may be such a union 
of the sexes as existed before the formation of woman (Gen. ii. 
21). 

In regard to the remaining words of this important verse, it may 
be remarked that the clauses, ἰσάγγελοι γάρ εἰσι, for they are like the 
angels, and καὶ υἱοί εἰσι τοῦ Θεοῦ, they are sons of God, are quite parallel, 
and serve as complements to each other; but both stand in causal 
relation to the last words, τῆς ἀναστάσεως viol ὄντες. ““ Because they 
are children of the resurrection, they are ἰσάγγελοι, like the angels.” 
—Hence, in the expression, υἱοὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, children of the re- 
surrection (the antithesis is nve~y2 2 Sam, xxii. 5), = viol τῆς ζωῆς, 
children of life, the word ὠνάστασις, resurrection, is to be taken as 
emphatic, like John xi. 25, where Christ says, “‘I am the resurrec- 


MartrHew XXII. 29, 30. 183 


tion,” the absolute life which conquers death, and in whose nature 
those who are raised from the dead, have part. On account of this 
participation they are called υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ (orhbxy +22, the ordinary 
name of angels, comp. the remarks on Luke i. 35), and todyyedou, 
(This is the only instance in which the expression occurs in the New 
Testament.) The angels are here evidently viewed as πνεύματα 
spirits ("τι") who partake of the nattire of God, the original Spirit; 
and, with their spiritual nature, those who rise from the dead 
(clothed with the σῶμα πνευματικόν) are described as in kindred rela- 
tionship. Although this idea may be referred primarily to the 
words, οὐκέτι ἀποθανεῖν δύνανται, they can no more die, so that spirit- 
uality appears as the element which imparts immortality ; yet a fur- 
ther reference to the more remote words, οὔτε γαμοῦσιν κ. τ. A. they net- 
ther marry, etc., 15 not excluded. The world of angels (as κόσμος νοητός) 
excludes the idea of development, and hence that of propagation, it 
being associated only with the world of sense (κόσμος αἰσθητός) to 
which man belongs by virtue of his natural body ; and accordingly 
the connexion might also be taken as follows, οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε 
ἐκγαμίσκονται, ἰσάγγελοι γάρ εἰσι. 

Here, however, it might appear that prophetic passages—for ex- 
ample, Isaiah lxv. 20, 23, in which mention is made of propagation 
in the kingdom of God—are contradictory to the words of the Re- 
deemer.* Indeed, it does not appear how this contradiction is to be 
reconciled without the supposition of a twofold resurrection (comp. 
the remarks on Luke xiv. 14); while, if this supposition be adopted, 
such passages are easily explained. In that case, those living in the 
kingdom must not, by any means, be regarded as having all risen 
from the dead (comp. Rev. xx. 8); and accordingly descriptions like 
those in Isaiah, Ixv. 20, 23, must be referred only to those who have 
not risen (and consequently still belong, in part, to the world), An 
argument of considerable weight, in proving that the authors of 
the New Testament (and even the Lord himself) taught a twofold 
resurrection, viz., that of the just, and the general resurrection, is 
furnished by the distinction that appears also in our passage between 
the expressions ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν, resurrection of the dead, and 
éx νεκρῶν, from the dead.t The origin of the phrase ἀνάστασις ἐκ 
νεκρῶν, resurrection from the dead (Matth. xvii.'7; Mark ix. 9, 10, 
xi, 25; Luke xx. 35 ;, Acts iv. 2; Gal. i, 1; 1 Cor. xv. 12, 20; 1 
Pet. 1,3), would be inexplicable, if it were not derived from the 

* Tt is probable that such passages of the Old Testament formed the foundation on 
which those Rabbias rested their notions, who dreamed of marriages among the subjects 
of the resurrection. But it was by no means a general Pharisaic opinion, that propaga- 
tion would take place among those who rise from the dead; men of spiritual dispositions 
taught the contrary, according to Scripture. 


+ The phrase ἀνάστασις ἐκ τ ὦ ν νεκρῶν never occurs. On the contrary, 1 Cor. xv. 12, 
13, 21, we have ὠνάστασις νεκρῶν, 


184 MattHew XXII. 31, 32. 


idea, that out of the mass of the dead some would rise first. It is 
true that most of the passages adduced relate to the Redeemer, to 
whom the ἐγείρεσθαι ἐκ νεκρῶν, rising from the dead, certainly has 
its peculiar application);* but in the passages, Mark xii. 25; Luke 
xx. 85; the words ἀνάστασις ἐκ νεκρῶν, resurrection from the dead, 
are used by the Lord himself, in reference to the act of the resur- 
rection, and we are therefore compelled to allow it its force in the 
present case also, Nor is it anything strange that the successive 
stages in the resurrection are in many instances not distinguished ; 
that under the single term resurrection, both are comprehended 
(Matth. xxii. 23, 28, and parallels, John xi, 24; Acts xxiii. 8), 
and that in ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν the é« νεκρῶν is understood (Matth. 
xxii. 31; Acts xvii. 82, xxii. 6; 1 Cor. xv. 12, 42, 52); for the 
general includes the special, and, on the same principle, the pro- 
phets of the Old Testament associated the first and second advents 
of Christ. 

Ver. 31, 832.—At the conclusion of the conversation, the Saviour, 
after having described, as far as the matter under inquiry was con- 
cerned, the nature of those who participate in the resurrection, ad- 
duces a further argument for the doctrine of the resurrection from 
the Scriptures. The prophets would have furnished the Lord with 
far more decided proofs of this doctrine (comp. Isaiah xxvi. 19 ; 
Ezek. xxxviii. 1, ff.; Dan. xii. 2, ff.); but since the Sadducees ac- 
knowledged only the Pentateuch, Jesus confined himself to that. 
(The passage quoted is Exod. 11, 6 [15]. It is cited only according 
to the sense; it does not exactly agree either with the LXX. or 
with the original text.) Inthe Pentateuch the horizon certainly 
appears limited to this life, and express references to the state after 
death are altogether wanting. But from this circumstance we can 
form no conclusion as to the individual opinions of Moses, and the 
most spiritual men of the nation ; it merely mdicates the view 
which was within the reach of the mass of the people. In their 
state of spiritual infancy, it was necessary, in treating of reward as 
well as of punishment, to point them to earthly things ; for they 
were incapable of contemplating any others asreal, And although 
there are intimations of a life after death in the Pentateuch (see 
the account of Enoch (Gen. v. 24) and the formulae 122 bs 982 or 
mnias, tx which by no means denote merely burial, but signify, to 
be gathered together in Sheol (comp. Gesenius in his Lexicon), of 
which mention is made, Gen. xxxvil, 85; xlii. 38 ; xiiv. 29 ; Numb. 
xvi. 80,) from which we may, with certainty, deduce the existence 
of the idea of continuance after death among the enlightened men 

* There is only one passage (Rom. i. 4), in which the expression ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν is 


applied to Jesus; but in this instance it requires a special consideration drawn from the 
context. 


MarrHew XXII. 31, 32. 185 


of the Mosaic age ; yet, the life after death, in the realms of shade, 
appears a joyless thing, and hence the view taken of it in the Pen- 
tateuch is altogether different from that of the New Testament 
(John xi. 25, 26 ; Phil. i. 23). This very disparity, however, per- 
fectly proves the truth of the representations of Scripture in refer- 
ence to the various degrees of human development with which its 
various parts are in harmony. Ina state of childhood the predom- 
inance of sense over spirit is undeniable; and in like manner, until the 
appearance of him who is himself the life and the resurrection—until 
the reception of his life and light—the view that the life after death 
is joyless and gloomy, is perfectly natural. Hence, if Moses, and 
the other authors of the Old Testament, had described the life of 
the soul when divested of the body—as Paul describes it—as a 
state to be earnestly desired, their representation would not have 
been natural. The New Testament description of the state after 
death is suited only to believers, whose soul is illumined by the 
spirit of Christ, and prepared to be received into his presence. 
Even in the case of believers, however, the condition without the 
body is still only a state of transition (although relatively blissful) ; 
they wait for the ἀπολύτρωσις τοῦ σώματος, redemption of the body 
(Rom. viii. 23 ; 2 Cor. v. 4). It may be said, therefore, that not 
merely the doctrine of the state after death, but the state itse?/, is 
viewed as progressive ; for although the continuance of the substance 
of the soul is the same in all the stages of development, yet the 
degree of consciousness in that continuance is modified according to 
the degree of consciousness, in general, that has been attained ; 
and, as in the individual, so in the mass. 

It seems strange, however, that the Lord founds the proof of the 
resurrection, which he draws from the Pentatuch, on the passage, 
Exod. iii. 6. That in doing this, he merely followed a Pharisaic 
custom of arguing from this passage for the resurrection,* or that 
he wished not so much to argue as to dazzle by an ingenious thought 
which he connected with the language of Scripture, it would be 
difficult for a Christian consciousness to admit. Undoubtedly the 
Redeemer recognized in the words of Moses an internal, doctrinal sig- 
nificance ; on which account (according to Matthew and Mark) God 
is spoken of as the author of the idea, This quotation is not for a 


* Whether Rabbins of an earlier period employed Exod. iii. 6 in the same manner 
as Jesus does here, is uncertain. The way in which Rabbi Manasse applies it, in his 
work on the resurrection from the dead, admits of the conjecture that he knew the 
Christian interpretation. (Comp. Schdttgen on the passage.) 

+ ‘The manner in which Luke (xx. 37) quotes the words of the Lord, refers the cita- 
tion definitely to Moses; and this, at any rate, renders it necessary to regard Moses as 
the author of the substance of the Pentateuch.—The words ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου, at the bush, 
are to be taken, both in Mark and in Luke, as meaning—" in the section where the ap- 
pearance of God in the bush is thy subject of discourse.” 


186 Matruew XXII. 31, 32. 


moment to be regarded as a mere formula, selected because Moses 
had introduced God as speaking in the first person ; but as an 
assertion of the divinity of the writings of Moses himself. For the 
supposition that Moses would have represented God as speaking, if 
he had not spoken, must be rejected as soniething utterly untenable ; 
and hence it is certain that the Lord cannot have appealed to any- 
thing of that kind. Indeed such a mode of using the Divine name 
would be alike contrary to the command, “ Thou shalt not take the 
name of the Lord thy God in vain,” and to the precept respecting 
prophets (Deut. xviii. 20). 

If, then, it be the intention of Christ to acknowledge in this 
passage the word of God, as that from which he argues in support 
of Divine truths necessarily must be (for that which is Divine can be 
proved only by what is Divine)—the question is, what meaning the 
_ Redeemer finds in the words quoted. Now, here all depends upon 
the signification of the name, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 
If it denoted nothing else than the idea of protection, goodwill, 
then it would not appear why we should not find in the Scripture 
the names, God of Adam, of Moses, of David, or other holy men— 
which is not the case. Similarly in the New Testament, the name, 
God of Jesus Christ,“ occurs (Rom. xv. 6; Hphes. i. 3) ; but not, 
the God of Peter, of Paul; nor may we say the God of Luther or 
of Calvin. This wsus loguendi, which certainly is not accidental, 
indicates a more profound idea, lying at the foundation of the name, 
and which the Lord, in the instance before us, wishes to bring out 
The God of Abraham and the God of Jesus is the one true God of 
heaven and earth ; but, as far as the chief forms of his manifesta- 
tionare concerned, he has revealed himself to men, in these individu- 
als, in different modes. Abraham is regarded, in this name (and 
similarly in the expression κόλπος ᾿Αβραάμ, bosom of Abraham, Luke 
xvi. 22), as the father and representative of the whole pre-Christian 
life ; Jesus Christ as the father and representative of the whole 
Christian world, which has received his life into itself. Hence, the 
formula Θεὸς ᾿Αβραάμ, Θεὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, God of Abraham, God of 
Jesus Christ, relates to the peculiar position of Abraham and Christ 
towards mankind universally ; according to which, both are the 
progenitors of the people of God—the former of Israel according to 
the flesh, the latter, of the spiritual Israel—The addition of the 
name, ‘‘ God of Isaac and God of Jacob,” as it appears to me, was 
designed to indicate that the genuine character of the Abrahamitic 
life was transmitted only through Isaac (not through Ishmael) and 
through Jacob (not through Hsau) ; both, therefore, are to be 
viewed as one withthe ancestor Abraham. The name God of Noah, 


* Jn order to point out the specific relation of Christ to God, it is always added, the 
God and Father of Jesus Christ. 


Luke XXII. 31, 32. 187 


might be applied in a similar manner, were it not that Noah must 
be considered the representative, not so much of sanctified human- 
ity, as of a general mass, holy and unholy. His son Shem, how- 
ever, certainly bears the character of the representative of saints, 
and accordingly, in one instance (Gen. ix. 26), the name δῦ crs, 
God of Shem, occurs in reference to him ; and on account of the 
similarity of the positions occupied by Abraham and Shem, this ex- 
pression is to be taken as identical in meaning with the designation 
brman orbs, God of Abraham. From such a signification of the 
name, the Lord could well draw his conclusion. The relation of 
God to Abraham had not passed away, but was permanent; on 
this account God continuously designated himself, in the one form 
of his manifestation, by the name, God of Abraham; and for the 
same reason, the name required the continued existence of him 
with whom the peculiar relation, whence it proceeded, was formed. 
Accordingly, the expression Θεὸς νεκρῶν, ζώντων, God of (the) dead, 
of (the) living (without an article), is not to be referred to the mass 
of the dead or of the living, but to the Patriarchs who are men- 
tioned, and should be rendered, ‘‘God is not a God of dead persons 
—since he still calls himself the God of Abraham, after Abraham’s 
death—but of those who are living.” For with this the idea added by 
Luke (xx. 38) strikingly harmonizes, “ for all live to him” (πάντες yap 
αὐτῷ ζῶσιν). Tor, after the relation of God to the saints has been 
pointed out—as it is expressed in the name—attention is now di- 
rected inversely to thei7 relation to God. As God is their God (Heb. 
xi. 16)—having, as it were, given himself to them for a holy posses- 
sion—so they give themselves again to him as an entire offering. 
Thus the mutual operation of love is here viewed as the peculiar 
feature of the eternal life. God is in them and they are in God ; 
and in this union they have the immortality (ἀθανασία) of Him 
who alone essentially possesses it (1 Tim. vi. 16). Hence it is clear 
that πάντες, all, does not relate to the mass of men (for although all 
live through God, all do not live to God, nor walk before God), but 
only to the spiritual seed of Abraham. There seems then also in 
these verses to be a play upon the words dead and living—the 
former comprehending not merely those who are corporeally dead, 
but those who are spiritually dead, and, as such, separated from God ; 
while the living embrace the spiritually alive, as well as those who en- 
joy continued existence. True, it would seem then to follow that those 
who are spiritually dead are those who are dead in themselves ;*+ 
while yet assuredly even the wicked will rise again (John v. 29), 


* That is, altogether dead, without any element of life.—Tr. 

+ The case is similar in the passage, John xi. 25, where the words, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ, 
κἀν ἀποθάνη, ζήσεται, he that believeth on me, even though he die, srall live, involve the an- 
tithesis; he that believes not in me, is in the power of death. 


188 Marruew XXII, 2—35. 


Nor is this conclusion, in fact, unscriptural ; for the very resurrection 
of the wicked delivers them over to the second death (θάνατος δεύτε- 
ρος, Rev, xx. 6, xxi. 8). The scriptural ideas of death and life are 
exceedingly profound and spiritual; and on this characteristic 
the peculiarity of their use is founded (comp. the remarks on John 
i. 3). Death has no reference to the annihilation of the substance, 
which can never take place ; consequently, the death of the soul 
does not involve the cessation of its existence ; on the contrary, it 
denotes only the state of the creature in separation from the fount- 
ain of life, the source of Being. The union of the soul with the ab- 
solute Life alone secures its true life, the consummation of which is 
the ζωοποίησις τοῦ σώματος, quickening of the body. It is only when 
the words which the Lord addressed to the Sadducees are thus un- 
derstood, that they are apprehended in their full signification. (On 
this subject, compare my Festprogramm : antiquiss. eccl. patrum 
de immortalitate anime sententia. Regiom. 1827, printed in the 
opusc, theol. Berol. 1833). | 

Ver. 33.—The sublime thoughts expressed in the words of the 
Lord touched not only the more susceptible populace, but (accord- 
ing to Luke) even some of the better disposed Pharisees, They ex- 
claimed καλῶς εἶπας, thou hast said well, when they saw that Jesus 
agreed with their views in opposition to the Sadducees, and so ably 
defended them. As, finally, Luke here concludes his narrative of the 
attempts of the Jews to entrap Jesus, he even here introduces the 
phrase “And they no longer ventured to ask him any question” 
(οὐκέτι δὲ ἐτόλμων ἐπερωτᾷν αὐτὸν οὐδέν) ; which Mark (xii. 34) and 
Matthew (xxii. 46) do not employ till afterwards. 

Ver. 34, 35.—The following account of a Pharisee, who asked 
Jesus respecting the greatest commandment, is omitted by Luke, 
but given by Mark with a minuteness which alone places the whole 
event inits true light. The very brief statements of Matthew would 
make it appear that the interrogator had evil designs in his conversa- 
tion with the Redeemer—which, according to Mark, was by no means 
the case, for Jesus manifested an affection for him, and praised him 
(Mark xii. 84). But to conclude, from this difference between the 
accounts, that the Evangelists refer to two entirely distinct facts, is 
not at all admissible ; for, in the first place, if that hypothesis were 
correct, two very similar events must have occurred at the same 
period ; and, secondly, the discrepancy between the two narratives 
is only apparent, and occasioned by the brevity of Matthew. If the 
words πειράζων αὐτόν, trying him (Matth. xxii. 35), be only taken as 
expressive of a well-meaning inquiry after the opinion of Jesus, 
rather than in a malevolent sense, the difference between the ac- 
counts is easily reconciled. Nor is their any greater necessity to 
adopt the view that this interrogator must have belonged to thu 


Marruew XXII. 34, 36. 189 


sect of the Sadducees or the Karaites, because he manifested so 
little enmity towards Jesus, and publicly applauded him. Tor, as 
to the Karaites, it can not only not be proved, but is in the highest 
degree improbable, that they existed in the time of Christ. And, as 
regards the Sadducees, the comprehensive word νομικός, lawyer, like 
γραμματεύς, 8071}, may assuredly signify a Sadducee ; but in Mark 
the expression “‘ one of the Scribes came up to him,” so closely fol- 
lows the preceding statement in Luke xx. 89, and the words ‘‘ hear- 
ing them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered 
them well” (ἀκούσας αὐτῶν συζητούντων, εἰδὼς ὅτι καλῶς αὐτοῖς ἀπε- 
κρίθη) so obviously point out the author of the question as one of 
those who had heard the immediately preceding conversation, that, 
according to Mark, we can regard him only as a Phariscee ; for it 
cannot be supposed that any but the Pharisees would have praised 
the answer of Jesus respecting the resurrection of the dead, as 
agreeing with their own opinions. In Matthew, indeed, this close 
connexion does not occur ; but, instead of this, he expressly men- 
tions the Pharisees, and speaks of the interrogator as one of that 
party. (The expression εἷς ἐξ αὐ τῶν can refer only to the Φαρισαῖοι 
συναχθέντες). Now, since it is natural to suppose that among the 
Pharisees there were minds nobler and more susceptible than others, 
and the words of Jesus may have produced a powerful impression 
upon the interrogator, there is no reason why he should not be re- 
garded as a member of the Pharisaic sect. In reference to him, the 
more minute statements of Mark are certainly to be taken as cor- 
rect, and hence it must be assumed that he was a hearer of the pre- 
vious conversation with Jesus. Nor does the account of Matthew 
contain anything directly contradictory to this. The language, ἀκού- 
σαντες ὅτι ἐφίμωσε (from φιμός, the curb or muzzle ; figuratively to 
make dumb, to put to silence) τοὺς Saddovraiove, hearing that he had 
silenced the Sadducees, may refer to the immediate hearing of 
the unanswerable discourse of Jesus; and the “ gathered to- 
gether” (συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό) does not necessarily imply a 
change of time and place. The words may be understood as relat- 
ing to the separate conference of the Pharisees in the presence of 
Jesus, whom we must regard as surrounded by crowds of people of 
all descriptions.* The mass of the Pharisees engaged in it, were, 
we may naturally suppose, animated by a very unholy and hostile 
spirit ; but, nevertheless, there may have been amonest them a 
single individual who remained accessible to nobler sentiments. 
(Respecting the expression, συνάγεσθαι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, comp. Schleusner 
in his Lexicon to the LXX. [vol. i. p. 501.] Like sn2, it refers not 


* In like manner we must take the words, Matth. xxii. 41, συνηγμένων δὲ τῶν Φαρι- 
σαίων, which do not suppose any local removal of Jesus, but a gathering together in his 
presence. 


190 MatrHew RX 1136-38. 


only to place, but also to oneness of disposition. Comp. the ver- 
sion of the LXX. Ps. ii. 2.) 

Ver. 36.—The question which the Pharisee proposed to Jesus, 
ποία ἐντολὴ μεγάλη ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ; which is the great commandment in 
the law? was founded on the distinction made, by this sect, be- 
tween great and little commands (comp. the remarks on Matth. v. 
19). There may have been special circumstances which rendered it 
desirable for the Pharisee to ascertain the opinion of Jesus as to the 
most important part of the law: but it is also probable that he was 
actuated by a personal sense of the importance of the question, as 
the profound observation inserted by Mark (xii. 38, 34), from the 
lips of the scribe, seems to indicate. At all events the question 
contained nothing insidious, for the Pharisees, who exhibited the 
most open diversity of opinion, called so many different commands 
the greatest (for example, circumcision, observance of the Sabbath, 
and the like), that the mention of this or that command could in 
no way have exposed Jesus to injury. 

With regard to the form of the query, the word μεγάλη, great, 
in Matthew, is certainly to be taken as superlative ; one ἐντολή, 
command (the form under which the law (νόμος), for a particular 
case, is represented) is viewed in contrast with the others (as the 
minor ones), The Redeemer, in his reply, unites μεγάλη, great, and 
πρώτη, first (Matth. xxii, 38) ; although Mark has the latter alone 
(xii. 29). In this expression there is a play upon the two significa- 
tions—of pre-eminence, and priority in the order of the commands. 
In the question, πρώτη first can primarily mean only pre-eminent ; 
but Jesus names as the pre-eminent command the first, and thus 
the words are founded upon the idea, “that command which, ac- 
cording to the arrangements of God, is placed first in order, is also 
the first in importance.” (In Mark πρώτη is followed by the addi- 
tion of tdv7wyv—a reading certainly preferable to πασῶν; which plainly 
betrays itself as a correction. Πάντων is best taken as neuter, which 
serves to strengthen πρώτη.) 

Ver. 87, 38—Jesus, in his reply, directs the mind from the 
variety of individual commands to the unity of the principle, the 
possession of which involves the fulfilment of them all. He cites 
the words Deut. vi. 5, in which the acknowledgment of the one true 
God, and the duty of loving him, are expressed. Mark has quoted 
the passage more fully, and even inserted in the discourse the con- 
fession of the unity of God. Although these first words of the Old 
Testament command do not necessarily belong to the connexion of 
the conversation, yet they are by no means inappropriate, as they 
are repeated (ver. 32), according to the account of Mark, by the in- 
terrogator. The unity of God, which involves the fact that he is 


Marturew XXII, 37, 38. 191 


incomparable, contains the decisive reason why he is to be loved un- 
reservedly—because everything worthy of love is in him, 

The Evangelists differ (comp. the remarks on Luke x. 27) ina 
peculiar manner from the Hebrew text, and from the LXX. in the 
use of the synonymes καρδία, ψυχή, σύνεσις, διάνοια. That the read- 
ing of the LXX. which translates 1% by δύναμις, should, by an 
oversight, have given rise to the term διάνοια, and that then ἰσχύς 
was added, is not probable ; because Mark (xii. 32), instead of em- 
ploying διάνοια, uses σύνεσις, which cannot have originated in a per- 
mutation. It appears to me more likely—as I have already stated, 
in the remarks on Luke x. 27—that the peculiar mode in which 
this passage of the Old Testament is treated, passed over from the 
free translation of Luke into Matthew and Mark. In regard to the 
several expressions, the term 7% according to the orignal text, re- 
lates to the activity of the will, to which the ἰσχύς in Mark is also 
to be referred, while διάνοια ---- νοῦς denotes the reflective, and ψυχή 
the sensitive principle in man ; so that the words express the great 
maxim, ‘‘ Man ought to devote all his powers and faculties which 
are derived from God to God, in love.” The substitution of σύνεσις 
for διάνοια, by Mark (xii. 32), as a designation of the thinking prin- 
ciple, merely serves to give prominence to the understanding over 
the reason ; and hence the meaning is only somewhat modified. 
But it is difficult to keep the ideas conveyed by the terms heart 
(καρδία) and soul (vy7j)—which are collocated by Mark as well as 
Matthew—properly separate from one another. Commonly, in the 
language of the New Testament, the heart is nothing else than the 
organ through which the sowd is manifested ; and, so far, the two 
expressions are parallel. But here it is necessary to draw a distinc- 
tion, for the sake of avoiding a tautology. Probably “ heart” may 
be understood as prominently designating the principle which de- 
sires, and ‘‘ soul” as that which feels ;* in this case strength (ἰσχύς) 
must be established in its relation to “heart,” as denoting the utter- 
ance of the will. Now, when the Lord designates love to God as 
the greatest or first commandment, it is evidently not his intention 
to place it as one amongst several others, and ascribe to it merely a 
higher degree of importance. On the contrary, the love of God is the 
command of all commands, and the whole law is only an expansion 
of the words ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν Θεόν σον, Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God. And if, in the language of the Old Testament, the love 
of God is required, under the form of a command (which appears 
contrary to its nature, since it is the freest activity of life), the ref- 
erence here (comp. the remarks on Luke vii, 48) surely is not to a 
pathological love, but to a purely spiritual love, which rests in the 


* Compare the particulars in my dissertation De nature humane trichotomia in the 
Opuse. Theol. page 135 seq. 


192 MartHew XXII. 39. 


unreserved surrender of the whole being, and of all the faculties, to 
their exalted object. Man, as such, carries in himself the ability 
for such a surrender ; it is true this ability is not to be conceived of 
as without grace, but with it.and zn it ; and the Divine command, 
“Thou shalt love me,” at once has its fulfilment where there is no 
resistance.* Hence, while the fact that man does not love is a mat- 
ter of guilt, his Joving God involves no merit—on the contrary, the 
purer and the more intense this love becomes, it is grace more en- 
tirely which produces it in him. At the same time of course, love 
manifests itself in degrees, In the Old Testament where the com- 
mand makes its first appearance, it means chiefly external obedience ; 
in the New Testament, where it appears in its perfection, it in- 
volves that obedience which is internal, and the surrender of the 
whole nature to the Author of our being. It is only in the latter 
relation that love completely casts out fear (Rom. viii. 15), for it is 
assimilation to the object loved. 

Ver. 39.—It is singular that the Saviour appears to connect 
with this one command a second, and yet immediately does away 
with the order of precedence, by saying that the latter is lke (ὁμοία) 
the former. He does not, however, by any means intend here to 
name another command, but only to describe love in its whole ex- 
tent. The expression ‘f Thou shalt love the Lord” might easily 
have been misunderstood as if Jesus had assigned the first import- 
ance to religious duties, such as prayer, sacrifice, fasting, and the 
like ; whereas he assuredly would not be understood to mean by 
the required love certain external or internal works, but a state of 
mind which is the fountain of all good works. ΤῸ prevent, there- 
fore, such misapprehensions, he adds the command to love our neigh- 
bour. As the love of God comprehends the commands of the first 
table, so the love of our neighbour comprehends those of the second 
table, but both are in reality perfectly one, since none can be con- 
ceived of without the others. The only difference is that love to 
God is the root, and love to our neighbour is the manifestation ; 
whilst love to God, on the part of man, appears negative (John iv. 
10), love to his neighbour appears positive. The precise definition 
of love to our neighbour, added in the words ὡς σεαυτὸν, as thyself, 
seems to denote not so much its strength as its purity. For he who 
commands us to hate our own life (Luke xiv. 26), could not make 
false self-love the standard of love to our neighbours ; genuine love 
to our neighbour, according to the degree of its development, acts 
towards another as it does to self—it hates what is evil just as 
much in the neighbour as in self, and in both it loves only that 


* Comp. the profound saying, 1 Cor. viii. 3, “If any man love God, the same is 
known of him.” 


MattnHew XXII. 40. 193 


which is of God.* Pure love, therefore, according to the words of 
Scripture, ‘‘ Hate evil and love good” (Amos v. 15; Rom. xii. 9), 
contains the element of severity as wellas that of tenderness. Love 
thus viewed is the sum (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις) of all commands, the one 
thing needful (Rom, xii. 9). 

Ver. 40,—The Redeemer (according to Matthew, who has pre- 
served in this verse a profound thought, which belongs to the com- 
pletion of the conversation) views love in the same relation to the 
whole of the Divine revelation, Love includes everything that God. 
requires of man. (The word κρεμῶσθαι quite corresponds with the 
Latin pendere, in the signification to be dependent upon anything.) 
As the world and man in it exist only through love, so God desires 
nothing but love—it is the πλήρωμα τοῦ νόμου, fulfilling of the law 
(Rom. xiii. 10). The Law and the Prophets are by no means to be 
understood merely of the Old Testament, as if the New Testament 
was based on something else than love; on the contrary, in its 
purity as the Divine law, and as such (although only in the germ), it 
comprehends also the New Testament life. Hence, love appears as 
that which is all-sufficient, in all degrees of development in the 
moral life ; in the highest as well as in the lowest, nothing exceeds 
it, for God is love (John iv. 8), and no one can love owt of God, or 
beside God, but only ix God. (Respecting the relation of love to 
faith, compare the remarks on Luke vii, 48.) According to the 
conciuding words in Mark, the interrogator rightly apprehended the 
rich meaning of the language of the Lord. He confessed that 
Jesus had spoken the truth ; that there is only one God ; that pre- 
cisely for this reason he is incomparable, and man must surrender 
himself to him without reserve. Of such spiritual sacrifice, he well 
understood that the external offerings, ordained in the statutes of 
the Old Testament, were but faint emblems. (Ὁλοκαύτωμα --- πὸν, 
a burnt-offering ; θυσία = πὶ, signifies indeed also a bloody sacri- 
fice [an unbloody sacrifice is called ny29,], but which was not wholly 
consumed.) ‘'he Scriptures of the Old Testament might easily 
lead to this knowledge, since they often represent the superiority 
of that inward disposition which is acceptable in the sight of God, 
to the external religious form, (1 Sam. xv. 22; Ps. xl. 7; Hos. vi. 
6.) The answer of the Pharisee proved that his mind was suscep- 


* Tt is therefore an inadequate statement to say that the command to love God 
means, “to love God above all.” God is thus placed in a false relation to crea- 
tures. Man ought not to love God more than creatures, but he ought not to love, at all, 
creatures as such, in their separation from God; he should love all in God and God in 
all, In like manner, man ought to love himself only in God (according to the true idea 
of himself), not according to his character as a creature in a state of defection from God; 
such love is sin and the root of all sinful actions, and, for this reason, its end must be 
death (Luke xiv. 26). 


Vou. 1 15 


194 MatTrHEW XXII. 41-46, 


{1016 of truth.“ The Evangelist remarks “that he answered dis- 
creetly” (6tt νουνεχῶς ἀπεκρίθηγ. (The expression occurs in 
the New Testament only here; but, like the adjective form 
νουνεχὴς, it is frequently found in profane writers.) But νουνεχῶς 
is not to be taken as identical with φρονίμως {πιο xvi. 8); mere 
wisdom could never have formed the foundation of such a judg- 
ment as is contained in the following words, οὐ μακρὰν εἶ x. τ. A. 
On the contrary, we must retain the reference in the word νουνεχῶς 
to the νοῦς (reason), which, as the power of discerning that which 
is Divine and supernatural, when rightly applied, is the condition of 
entering into the supernatural order of things. The “kingdom” is 
here viewed in its spiritual character, in which it is to be regarded 
as already present and accessible. At the same time, “ not being 
far from,” is not identical with being 7m the kingdom. Being zn the 
kingdom of God involves the possession of love ; but the inquiring 
Pharisee understood its necessity in order to please God, rather than 
possessed the thing itself. Still the correctness of his knowledge, 
united with the open-heartedness of his confession, caused the Re- 
deemer to hope that he would yet learn to take the important step 
from mere knowledge to the actual experience of the power of 
grace. 

Ver. 41-46.—After this conversation of the Pharisee wita Jesus, 
in the whole of which the power of the wisdom that dwelt in the 
Saviour must have struck and impressed the minds of all, they ven- 
tured no more to question him. But at the conclusion, Jesus ad- 
dressed a question to them, for the purpose of exposing to them 
their ignorance of Divine things, which they in vain sought to con- 
ceal, The occurrence is immediately connected with what precedes, 
so that the Φαρισαῖοι συνηγμένοι, asseinbled Pharisees, are precisely 
those who were congregated together in his immediate neighbour- 
hood and presence. (Mark adds, ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, that is, in one of the 
porches or halls that belonged to the temple ; in which place all the 
preceding incidents may have also transpired.) In the whole ac- 

* De Wette (on Luke xvi. 27-31) adduces this passage, Mark xii, 34, along with 
Matth. v. 19, in support of the erroneous assertion, “that according to the Christianity 
of the synoptical Evangelists, to repent and to fulfil the law is sufficient for happiness.” 
But the synoptical Evangelists have no other Christianity than that of the other writers 
of the New Testament. The circumstance that they seldom speak of the sacrificial death 
of Jesus (comp. the remarks on Matth. xx. 28) results from the fact that Jesus, before 
the completion of his work, only referred to this point in the way of hints, and left the 
further inculcation of it to the Holy Spirit. After the resurrection there was no lack of 
instruction on this subject. (Comp. the observations on Luke xxiv. 25, ff.. 44, ff.) But 
the answer of Jesus, in this passage (Mark xii. 34), does not say that, the Scribe who pro- 
posed the question to him, was, in the state of his soul, prepared for happiness, but only 
that he was not far from the kingdom of God—that is, he was in such a state that he 
might be born again and so enter it. Without regeneration no one can enter the king- 


dom of God (John iii. 3); but many a man has become incapable of regeneration, through 
his impurity, which has stifled all susceptibility of grace. 


MatrHew XXII. 46. 195 


count, we avoid all difficulty by assuming that the Pharisaic teach- 
ers overlooked the higher nature of the Messiah (comp. John x. 3), 
ff.) and saw in him merely a distinguished man (κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν, chosen 
by God to be the Messiah on account of his virtue, as Tryphon says 
in Justin Martyr*), And the circumstance of the Pharisees being 
wedded to this opinion, notwithstanding the passages of the Old 
Testament quoted by the Lord (and others as clear), proves the 
very blindness of which the Lord here designed to convict them. 
They universally explained the Psalm as Messianic (for it was on 
this hypothesis that the whole argument of Jesus rested ; the op- 
position of the Jews to this view was developed only at a much 
later period ; compare Hengstenberg’s Christol. s. 140, f.), but they 
used, for their own purpose, merely the magnificent descriptions of 
triumph which it contains, and dazzled by the outward splendour, 
overlooked its intimation of the higher nature of the Messiah. The 
Redeemer confirms the Messianic interpretation of the Psalm in so 
decided a manner, that it would have seemed impossible for any one 
to attempt to prove from this very passage that he denied the 
reference to the Messiah. But what does not man see and jail to 
see, for the purpose of establishing his own favourite opinions ? 
The Redeemer not only mentions David most definitely as the 
author of the Psalm, but ascribes to him prophetic inspiration as 
the influence under which he composed it, (Πνεῦμα = τιν, the prin- 
ciple of all higher illuminations and sacred inspiration.) The cita- 
tion from Ps. cx. 1, is exactly according to the LX X., and occurs 
again Acts 11. 84; 1 Cor. xv. 25; Heb. x. 13. Hence nothing can 
be more striking than this passage, as a proof that Jesus attributed 
the Divine nature to himself 77 as he contrasts himself with Abra- 
ham, John viii. ὅθ, so here with David, In adducing the descrip- 
tion of the Messiah as triumphing over all enemies, the Lord pro- 
nounces upon the Pharisees their condemnation, and thus far this 
citation forms the transition to the following discourse of Christ 
against the Pharisees, which is addressed directly to the mass of the 
people assembled around him, whereby the rupture with the ruling 
party is represented as complete. The people finally were still de- 
voted to the Redeemer, and heard his discourses gladly (Mark xii. 
37). 

* In the work composed by Justin Martyr against the Jews, entitled Dialogus cum 
Tryphone Judzo.—tTr. 

+ J. D. Michaelis erroneously thinks that the Lord read in the Psalm OND instead of 
Ἔν δ. Sufficient proof to the contrary is furnished by the version κύριος pov. The 
argument for the Divine nature of Christ lies in the words, κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν pov, sit at my 


right hand, which expresses participation in the Divine government of the world (comp. 
the remarks on Matth. xxvi. 64). 


196 Marruew XXIII. 1. 


§ 7. Discourses CeNnsuRING THE PHARISEES. 
(Matth. xxiii. 1-39; Mark xii. 38-40; Luke xx. 45-47.) 


According to the unanimous testimony of the three narrators, 
all of whom here communicate anti-Pharisaic elements, it cannot 
be doubted that the Redeemer, at the conclusion of these conversa- 
tions with the Pharisees, turned to the people and censured that 
sect. But itis in the highest degree improbable that the whole 
discourse was thus delivered by the Lord as Matthew here gives it, 
specially on account of the relation between this and a kindred one 
in Luke (xi. 39, ff, where compare the remarks). It would indeed 
be quite conceivable that Jesus might again utter sentiments against 
the Pharisees similar to those which he had previously expressed ; 
and hence the two discourses (in Luke, and here in Matthew) might 
have been thus verbally delivered, and accurately recorded. But, 
in the first place, this appears to be opposed by the circumstance 
that the harmony between the two is too great to be explained 
merely from the repetition of kindred thoughts. In the discourse 
reported by Matthew, nothing is wanting that Luke has, and the 
language frequently agrees word for word. And, secondly, the dis- 
course in Matthew has a form which seems to have proceeded rather 
from the reflection of the writer than from its immediate delivery. 
It might be supposed that Matthew purposely placed it in contrast 
with the Sermon on the Mount, and shaped it accordingly. As the 
Lord in that Sermon commenced his instruction of the people, and 
impressed the truth which he taught upon their hearts; so with 
this he concludes his public ministry (for all further discourses in 
Matthew, as in John, are intended for the immediate circle cf his 
disciples), and in it he warns against the mere appearance of truth 
The beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount are contrasted, in tha 
anti-Pharisaic Sermon, with the woes as forming its substance, to 
which the introduction and the close refer. Whilst the former, pro- 
ceeding from the general relation of the Scribes and Pharisees to 
the theocracy, rebukes their radical moral defects, viz., hypocritical 
self-indulgence and vain ambition (as the opposite of which, hum- 
ble earnestness is commended in the children of God)—the latter, 
connecting itself with the woes, utters the final threatening. Hence 
in both of these great discourses, an act of the judicial work of 
Christ is presented ; assuming in the Sermon on the Mount, the 
form of benediction, in the discourse against the Pharisees, of con- 
demnation. Both, however, have to do, not with the world as such, 
but with members of the “kingdom,” and those who ought to be 
80, and wished to appear so. Thus understood, the objection is re- 


MatrHew XXIII. 1. 197 


moved which might be entertained against this severe discourse, as 
being spoken by the gentlest of the sons of men. True, without the 
Spirit of God—who, on the one hand, instils as well a pure hatred 
of evil as a pure love of good, and, on the other, imparts the ability 
to discern the condition of the soul—so positive a judgment pro- 
nounced upon another individual or a whole society, without sin, is 
inconceivable. (Hence the presept, ‘Judge not!” Matth. vii. 1, 
which forbids us to attribute guz/t to our neighbour, which here, 
however, is even measured.) But on the Redeemer the spirit of 
love as well as of truth rests without measure (John 111. 34), and in 
the power of this spirit he judged upon earth and judges in heaven. 
(Compare something similar in the ministry of the apostles, re- 
corded in the remarkable account, Acts v. 8, ff., which must be ex- 
plained as resulting from the power of the Divine Spirit imparted 
to Peter). It may indeed surprise us that Jesus censures the Scribes 
and Pharisees without exception. (Among the Scribes (γραμματεῖς) 
the Sadducees are included, in so far as they were skilled in the 
law; comp. the remarks on Luke x. 25.) Among these parties 
there may assuredly have been individuals of susceptible minds, 
who were connected with their sect only by external relations ; in 
regard to the Pharisees, we are assured of the fact by the examples 
of a Nicodemus, a Gamaliel, a Paul. On what ground then were 
not these distinctly excepted by Christ? The most natural answer 
is, doubtless, that the Redeemer did not intend to censure individ- 
uals, but the entire spirit of the parties who governed the na- 
tional life of the Jewish kingdom. Since under the cover of 
spirituality, it pursued things of the flesh, it bore that character of 
hypocrisy (ὑπόκρισις) rendered prominent by the Saviour. Carnality, 
when manifest as such, is less dangerous than the flesh assuming the 
aspect of spirit ; and therefore the Lord contends against the hypo- 
critical, more than against the vicious. Even those among the 
Scribes and Pharisees who were better disposed than the rest, in so 
far as they belonged to that school, must have received some in- 
fluence from it, and iz so far the denunciation applied even to the 
best among them, as Paul justly perceived after his conversion ; but 
in so far as their better nature had been kept free from such influ- 
ence, the censure fell upon the party to which they externally be- 
longed, and not on them. 

Now, although the whole description of the ungodly character 
of these hypocritical theocrats, wears a national and temporary as- 
pect ; yet it is founded upon eternal ideas, which apply equally in 
all periods of the world. As sin in man at all times induces many 
to be solicitous about sacred things (like the Pharisees), as a means 
of promoting earthly, selfish ends ; so the anti-Pharisaic discourse 
of the Lord is a denunciation against hypocrites in all ages, whose 


198 . Matrsew XXIII. 1-3. 


form and appearance may vary, but whose real nature (or rathet 
unnature), ever remains the same. 

Ver. 1.—According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus addressed him- 
self to his disciples alae: and hence the whole circle of those whose 
minds were inclined towards him. Mark and Luke begin with the 
general formula, βλέπετε (προσέχετε) ἀπὸ τῶν γραμματέων, which Mat- 
thew omits. This must be supplied from such passages as Matth. 
xvi. 6 (xi. 12); Mark viii. 15; Luke xii. 1 (in which warning is 
given against the ζύμη of the Pharisees); since, according to what 
has been before remarked, it was not the individual Pharisees and 
Scribes against whom the Lord intended to warn his hearers, but 
their collective tendency, which indeed had, in many cases, become 
completely identified with their personal characters. 

Ver. 2, 8—The Lord proceeds from the general relation of the 
Pharisees to the theocracy, and from that of the people to them. 
ΤῸ obviate any misapprehension of his censure, he first states that 
the Pharisees and Scribes have an organized political influence, and 
reminds his hearers, that to this, in so far as it actually existed, 
they ought to submit. Every attempt therefore at personal self-re- 
dress was thereby cut off from any appeal to the discourse of Christ. 
But, in speaking thus, the Lord by no means affirms that this influ- 
ence was rightly acquired, or was conferred by God. For, although 
the order of priests were to be, by Divine appointment, the repre- 
sentatives of the theocratic institutions, yet the priests were not in 
themselves identical with the Scribes and Pharisees. These, on the 
contrary, exhibited a sinful and false application of sacerdotal 
power ; and it was this—not the sacerdotal power itself—that the 
Lord denounced. But notwithstanding that which was false in the 
position of the Scribes, Christ would have their actual authority 
acknowledged (as Rom. xiii. 1); proceeding, doubtless, upon the . 
principle that any arbitrary alteration of a political or religious 
power on the part of subjects, is more mischievous than the power 
itself, even although, viewed in itself, it deserves severe censure. All 
changes of the kind must come from above, that is, through the 
power of the supreme Spirit, when he has determined that what has 
been permitted for a time, shall be abolished. | 

(The καθέδρα Μωσέως, sent of Moses, is the symbol of the collec- 
tive theocratic authority which was united in Moses, and after him 
was vested in the body of theocratic representatives, which had the 
high priest at its head. There appears to be a design in the use οὖ, 
the word ἐκάθισαν, as descriptive of what was done by the Pharisees 
in regard to this power. Καθίζω literally means to seat, καθίζεσθαι to 
seat one’s self, to sit. But in the New Testament καθίζω also stands 
intransitively [Matth. xxi. 7 ; Mark xi. 7; John xii. 14; Acts ii. 
3, xill. 14]. Hence καθίζουσι might have been used here. But the 


MarttHew XXIII. 2, 3. 199 


aorist better expresses the fact of having sat down, and conse- 
quently, the idea of continuous sitting. [Hence also the aorist 
ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ, Θεοῦ is generally employed in reference to Christ’s 
sitting at the right hand of God]. Finally it is in the highest de- 
gree probable that the adoption of the expression ἐκάθισαν was 
intended to denote that the position of the Scribes was chosen by 
themselves. ) 

Upon the principle stated above, Jesus founds the precept to 
follow the instruction of the Scribes, but not their conduct, which 
itself contradicted their teaching. (In the phrase ὅσα dv εἴπωσιν 
ὑμῖν τηρεῖν, τηρεῖν appears spurious. Probably it was designed to 
render εἴπωσιν, which seemed too general, more definite. But there 
is a distinction between τηρεῖν and ποιεῖν ; the former meaning that 
which is internal, and the latter denoting rather that which is ex- 
ternal. We may apply the word τηρεῖν, but not ποιεῖν, to a precept 
which refers simply to the inward life.) Here, however, a difficulty 
arises as to the way in which this command was to be understood. 
Among the statutes inculcated by the Pharisees there were many 
(the so-called δευτερώσεις, the second code of laws, propagated 
merely by oral teaching, and subsequently embodied permanently 
in the Talmud), which were not founded on the word of God in the 
Old Testament, but were merely human dogmas (called ver. 4, φορτία 
δυσβάστακτα); and this being the case, the question is, whether the 
design of the Redeemer was that the people should seek to comply 
with these dogmas, or whether his words are to be taken with the 
restriction, “‘so far as their instructions harmonize with the word 
of God.” I cannot convince myself that the latter view is consis- 
tent with the meaning of the Lord ; for in that case, the masses of 
the people would be placed above their superiors, as more accurately 
acquainted with the law ; whereas the very object of the admoni- 
tion was to prevent such a revolutionary derangement. The inter- 
pretation, that αὐ the commands of the Pharisees were to be 
obeyed, involves no inconsistency whatever. Although the spirit 
from which those directions proceeded was a false one, yet the 
directions themselves contained nothing sinful; they were merely 
very burdensome, because they encumbered all the relations of life 
with a multitude of minute regulations, and consequently restrained 
spontaneous movement. But in the very law of the Old Covenant, 
there was, according to the design of God, something similar, which 
the Scribes only drove to a false extreme. And the Lord, who 
taught that the ordinances of the Old Covenant were to be observed 
(Matth. v. 19), was supported, in requiring the same attention to 
Pharisaic statutes, by the fact that they were decrees of the actually 
existing ecclesiastical government. Did any sincerely and earnestly 
try to keep this innumerable multitude of laws (which the hypo- 


200 MartrHew XXIII. 4-7. 


critical Pharisees, in contradiction to themselves, did not do), he re- 
ceived no injury by the effort; but on the contrary, the more 
earnest his endeavour, the more quickly did he attain the full 
blessing of the law—namely, an insight into his own sin, and the 
impossibility of keeping the laws (Rom. ili. 20). Moreover, he was 
then prepared for the kingdom of God, and after entering it in 
repentance and faith, might attain to the higher position of spirit- 
ual life in the law, to which the outward law was intended to con- 
duct him. 

Ver. 4.—Fidelity to the law is placed in the strongest contrast 
with the hypocritical faithlessness of the Pharisees. Their precepts 
are compared to a burden (φορτίον, similarly ζυγός is used in Matth, 
xi. 29), which they imposed (ὦμος, as the organ by which anything 
is borne) on the people with its full weight, while they themselves 
make not the slightest exertion (daktvAw) to move it. Now, it ap- 
pears that all the requirements of the Pharisees are trifles in com- 
parison with those of the Saviour. He himself calls (ver. 23) the 
inward duties τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου, the weightier parts of the law, 
and not only desires the fulfilment of these (comp, Matth. v.), but 
demands also (Luke xiv. 26) that a man hate father, mother, 
brothers, sisters, yea even his own soul, for his sake. Christ thus 
claims the whole man, with all his power and dispositions for him- 
self—he requires ἀγαπήσεις με ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου κ. τ. A, thou shalt 
love me with all thy heart, etc. (as in Matth. xxii. 37, as quoted 
from Deut. vi. 5, had been said of God); whilst the Pharisees called 
only for single actions. It has already been remarked (Luke xiv. 
26), that this requirement would involve an assumption surpassing 
all the pretensions of all the pretenders in the world, if the Lord 
could not have said, in deed and in truth, “‘ He that seeth me, seeth 
the Father.’ (John xiv. 9). His claim therefore to an entire and 
unreserved surrender of self to him, was at the same time the ex- 
pression of the most exalted grace and mercy ; for what the Lord 
requires, that he also gives, enabling man to meet his requirements, 
so that in the power of love all his commands are no longer grievous. 
(1 John v. 3). To the commands of the Lord the great principle 
is applicable, da quod jubes, et gube quod vis; and indeed such a 
prayer need scarcely be offered up to him, for his command itself 
is power and eternal life (John xii. 50). But human ordinances, 
however slight and paltry their form, are a burdensome yoke, because 
they never can instil into the soul the power of love. 

Ver, 5-7.—The Lord points out hypocritical vanity and ambi- 
tion as the fundamental false principles in the Pharisaic character 
and in describing them, he purposely dwells upon the most external 
of the external duties.* (The φυλακτήρια means of preservation, 

* The description is quite parallel in the Sermon on the Mount (Matth. vi. 1, ff), 


MatrHew XXIII, 8-10. 201 


“amulets, were verses of Scripture, which, according to misunder- 
stood passages of the Old Testament, were written on small scrips 
of parchment, placed in boxes, and bound on the forehead with 
straps (732n). The Jews of the present day still use them, In 
Lundiys jiid. Heiligth. 5. 800, there is a representation of them. The 
κράσπεδα TOV ἱματίων, in Hebrew mscx [Numb. xv. 88], were purple 
lappings attached to their garments. These were ordained by Moses 
himself, as a symbolical memorial of the calling of the children of 
Israel.) Honour before men is the idol to which they pay homage. 
(The 32 = 473, as ἃ name of honour, does not occur till after the 
captivity. It is given to princes as well as to distinguished teachers, 
The Rabbins, who were eager after titles, subsequently distinguished 
33, 229, and 422, so that the latter was the highest title of honour. 
Comp. Buxt. lex. p. 2172 seq. and 2176.) 

Ver. 8-10.—Christ follows up this denunciation of Pharisaic 
vanity by exhorting all his disciples to be humble, No one amongst 
them should allow himself to be called by the names Rabbi, father, 
master, (ῥαββί, πατήρ, καθηγητής). As the principle on which this 
direction is founded, he points out the common relation of all to 
God, and to God in Christ. All members of the kingdom form one 
family, the single members of which are brethren under one Father 
and Redeemer. (Hphes. iii, 5, 6.) Each individual member should 
have his independent centre and source of life in the heavenly world, 
and not bind himself in his essential nature to a central object on 
earth, (Ver. 8, the reading διδάσκαλος, as an interpretation of ῥαββί 
{[comp. Jolin i, 39] is undoubtedly to be preferred to καθηγητής. 
Καθηγητής probably arose because it was thought that Jesus could 
not have prohibited the name διδώσκαλος, Ἰζαθηγητής, from καθηγέομαι, 
corresponds with ὁδηγός in the signification of ‘ leader,” ‘ guide.” 
In the old Greek Church, the abbots and abbesses of the monasteries 
and convents were called καθηγούμενος, καθηγουμένη.--- ΑΒ regards the 
name πατήρ, father, for a spiritual teacher, it occurs in the Old Tes- 
tament, 2 Kings vi. 21. The idea which lies at the foundation of 
the term is that of spiritual birth, which, in a certain sense, is brought 
about by communication and instruction ; for which reason also pu- 
pils are called 8533, τέκνα, children.) But here the question arises, 
How can this precept of the Redeemer be regarded in consistency 
with the practice of the apostles and of the later Church ? True, 
the fact that Jesus is frequently called Rabbi in the Gospels is 
quite proper according to these words, for Jesus was to be acknowil- 
edged as the only Son of God who revealed the One Father as the 
true καθηγητής, leader ;* but the division of the members of the 


where the true spirituality of the children of God is contrasted with the vain formality 
of the Pharisees. 
* John the Baptist is also called Rabbi (Jo miii. 26); but this was by his own disciples, 


202 Matruew XXIII. 11, 12. 


Church into teachers and taught prevails even throughout the 
apostolic epistles ; and, at a very early period, when the want of a 
church constitution became perceptible, certain gradations arose 
between the leading persons in the churches. Indeed, such a dis- 
tinction of position seems so unavoidable in every ecclesiastical or- 
ganization, that it is repeated everywhere, although under various 
names. Now, if these are different positions, it does not appear 
why designations should not be employed to mark the difference ; 
and yet the Lord here so decidedly denies this, that the idea itself 
will not admit of any alteration. The simplest way of solving the 
difficulty is to distinguish the ideal state of the Church from that 
which acutally exists (as Matth. v.)* In the latter, the laws which 
apply to the true Church cannot fully come into application, be- 
cause it still bears a legal character. This necessarily requires a 
constitution resting upon a certain form of subordination, as the 
Old Testament also shews. But in this ideal state, the Church 
knows nothing of the kind, not even any subtle distinction, like that 
which Philo made between υἱοὶ λόγου and τοῦ ὄντος ; on the contrary, 
it is presumed that in every member of the kingdom an immediate 
bond of union has been formed with the Eternal, and the necessity 
for intervention is entirely done away. Hence the words of Jesus 
in this place are similar in their import to the prophecy of Jere- 
miah (Jerem, xxxi. 34), where he says: “No one shalJ teach the 
other saying : Know the Lord ; but ald shall know me, both small 
and great.” | 

Ver. 11, 12.—The following language clearly shews that the dis- 
tinctions of great and small in the kingdom were not to be abolished, 
since mention is made of the greater (μείζων). The Lord only means 
to intimate—just as in Matth. xx. 26, where the same words oc- 
curred—that in the kingdom of God, in its ideal, spiritual form, an 
altogether different rule prevails in regard to great and small, mas- 
ter and servant, from that which prevails in the world. In the latter, 
power and understanding are the measure of authority ; in the 
former, love. This love the Lord now commends to his disciples, 
and, in contrast with the self-exaltation of the Pharisees, exhorts 
them to exemplify it in its most sublime manifestation, that of self- 
abasement, and voluntary condescension to weakness and want. 
(Comp. the remarks on Luke xiv. 11.) Both the ideas in these 
verses are of such a kind that they may probably have been often 
uttered. Especially the maxim in y. 12th, of which there are inti- 

* Better perhaps thus, that the Saviour’s precept holds indeed of the actual church, 
but is to be understood not 80 much literally, as spiritually. Granting the necessity of 
various positions and offices in the church, these should be regarded rather as services 
than as dignities, and thus the official remains in conscious equality of rank with every 


pious church member. It is not holding office, but advancing in the Christian life, that 
gives dignity in the church of Christ.—[E. 


Marruew XXIII. 18, 14. 203 


mations even in the Old Testament (Ezek. xxi. 26), appears to have 
been proverbial ; a kindred sentiment is uttered by Rabbi Hillel ; 
Humilitas mea est elevatio mea, et elevatio mea humilitas mea.* 
There is, however, this difference between the rule as laid down in 
the New Testament, and as hinted at in the Old—that in the 
former, the abasement is far more definitely represented as an act 
of self-denial, whereas in the latter, it has the appearance of an in- 
voluntary humiliation (like that of Job) induced by external cir- 
cumstances. 

Ver. 13, 14——Several modern critics reverse the order of these 
two verses, and certainly upon just grounds. (Schultz, in his edition 
of the N. T. follows Griesbach in this respect.) But even the gen- 
uineness of ver. 14 in Matthew has been contested, and it is affirmed 
that it appears to have been adopted from Mark and Luke. The 
verse is indeed wanting in the manuscripts B.D.L., etc., and, more- 
over, the words καὶ προσευχόμενοι, which, although quite suitable in 
Mark and Luke, are not so in Matthew, seem very much to favour 
this hypothesis. It may be, however, that the only spurious words 
in Matthew are καὶ προφάσει, which some manuscripts (although not 
very important ones) omit ; for it appears to me scarcely probable 
that the verse should have been interpolated in so many codices. 
Whereas, if a part of it originally belonged to Matthew, it may 
easily have been completed from the other two Evangelists. The 
expression “Shut the kingdom” (κλείειν τὴν βασιλείαν) is founded 
upon the figure of a palace or temple of truth and wisdom, to which 
the kingdom of God is compared. The Pharisees, by their hypo- 
critical disposition of mind—which had regard not to inward reality, 
but to external form—prevented not themselves only, but others 
also, from entering the new, holy, living community established by 
the Redeemer. The same figure somewhat modified, is employed, 
Luke xi. 52, in the parallel passage ἤρατε τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς γνώσεως, ye 
have taken away the key of knowledge. (Yor ἤρατε, cod. D. reads 
éxpvware; but this is only an interpretation of ἤρατε, which here 
signifies, “‘to take away,” “to withdraw.”) Itis evident that we 
are not here to understand the term knowledge as meaning the en- 
tire contents of the Gospel, for only they who entered into the 
kingdom possessed it. The knowledge here referred to is rather the 
knowledge of Jesus as the true Messiah promised by all the pro- 
phets. The Scribes, as interpreters of the Divine law, might and 
ought to have had this ; but, in their hypocritical perverseness they 
had forfeited the knowledge which would have enabled them to enter 
the kingdom of God. It is remarkable that in Luke xi. 52, the 
aorist is chosen (εἰσήλθετε and ἐκωλύσατε), whereas in Matthew we 
have the present tense. The latter mode of expression is the 

* “My abasement is my exaltation, and my exaltation, my abasement.”—[K 


. 


204 Matruew XXIII. 15, 


stronger (the aorist of Luke favours the supposition that the words 
he records were uttered at an earlier period, when a change on the 
part of the Pharisees was still to be expected); it represents the op- 
position as continued, permanent, and of such a kind that no alter- 
ation could be anticipated. Ver. 14 describes the hypocritical 
avarice of the Pharisees, which induced them to rob the most needy 
and defenceless (χῆραι, widows) of the last remaining necessaries of 
life (olxéac), under the form (πρόφασις, “pretext,” « mask”) of religion. 
On account of this combination of hypocrisy and injustice, their 
guilt (and its consequence, the κρίμα = κατάκριμα, condemnation) 
appears doubly great. 

Ver. 15—The Lord, thirdly, censures the anxiety of the Phar- 
isees to make prosely tes. (Here ξηρά is used ; τὸ ξηρόν is more 
common, The only other instances in which προσήλυτοι occurs in 
the New Testament are Acts ii, 11, vi. 5, xii. 43. Gentiles who 
joined the Old Testament church are ordinarily called in the New 
Testament, φοβούμενοι or σεβόμενοι τὸν Θεόν, persons fearing or wor- 
shipping God. Concerning the distinction between proselytes of 
the gate and proselytes of righteousness compare Winer in his 
Reallex.) The Redeemer again represents it as the most pernicious 
feature of their character that they injured others (those who were 
converted), in that their converts became still more guilty than 
those who had converted them. This ἀπώλεια, perdition, of the 
proselytes forms the antithesis to the salvation (σωτηρία) which the 
Pharisees pretended to have in view. (Υἱὸς γεέννης signifies a son of 
Gehenna [compare the observations on Luke xvi. 24], and of the 
punishment that pertains to it.) Hence the expression has refer- 
ence to the augmentation of guilt in the proselytes. But how the 
Lord could suppose such a thing in the case before us does not at 
once appear ; for, according to Divine as well as human justice, the 
corrupter is more criminal than the corrupted. If it be said that 
the false zeal of the converts assumed a stronger form in them than 
in the very men who converted them, thisf assuredly would heighten 
their guilt only in case it was coupled with a knowledge of the per- 
versity which it involved—and this is not to be supposed. The 
matter may rather be explained as follows: the Pharisees were after 
all held and borne on by the general spirit which animated the in- 


* Heathen writers often mention the eagerness of the Jews to gain adherents to their 
religion. On this subject compare the treatise of Danz (Jena, 1688) de cura Judzorum 
in proselytis faciendis. This treatise isembodied in Meuschenii N. T. 6 Talmude illus- 
tratum, p. 649, seq. 

+ Justin Martyr speaks to the same 0 effect in the passage (dial. c. Tryph. pag. 350, 
edit. Sylb.) where it is said of the proselytes: Διαλύτερον Ἰουδαίων βλασφημοῦσιν εἰς TO 
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡμᾶς τοὺς εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύοντας καὶ φονεύειν καὶ αἰκίζειν βούλονται, κατὰ 
πάντα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐξομοιοῦσθαι σπεύδουσι, They blaspheme his name more freely than the 
Jews, and seek to murder and outrage us who believe on him; for in all respec's they seek te 
resemble you. 


~Marrsew XXIII. 16-24. 205 


stitutions of the Mosaic religion ; this spiritual support was not 
enjoyed by the Gentiles who became united with the Jewish Church. 
They received Divine truth through an impure channel ; they had 
not entirely abjured heathenism ; and the result was, that their re- 
ligion constituted a wretched mongrel compound, which estranged 
them further from the Divine life than the very men who proselyted 
them. [Apparent conversion toa false faith has the saddest re- 
sults. Conversion to a mere form—whether of worship or of doc- 
trine, without regeneration, leads always to fanaticism (in rites or 
doctrines), and in the strength of their fanaticism the unregenerated 
disciples are therefore worse than the once spiritual, but corrupted 
teachers. | 

Ver. 16-22.—As a/fourth point in the sinful conduct of the 
Pharisees, the Redeemer specifies their hypocritical trifling with 
oaths. As, in all ages, self-seeking, if it finds its interest in acting 
under religious forms, can contrive to evade the rigour of truth by 
deception, so it exhibited itself also among the Pharisees. In order 
that they might dispense with the keeping of oaths for their own 
selfish ends, they distinguished between such oaths as were valid, 
and such as were not valid. They pronounced the oath by the tem- 
ple or the altar of less importance than that which was sworn by 
the gold of the temple (by which doubtless we are to understand 
the treasure of the temple, not its golden ornaments),* or by the 
offering on the altar. Just as at Matth. v. 84-36, Christ points out 
the emptiness of such distinctions, by proving that every oath in 
reality has reference to God as the only True One, so an oath by 
the temple, by heaven, or by the altar, can therefore have no mean- 
ing, unless these created things be viewed in their relation to the 
Eternal himself} The whole argument is accordingly a commen- 
tary on the term of reprimand, “ blind guides,” (ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοί), 
since it shews to the Scribes and Pharisees, who assumed the 
guidance of the people of God, their own blindness in Divine 
things ; they did not even know the nature of an oath, and wished 
to introduce casuistical distinctions into their teaching. 

Ver, 23, 24—Fifthly, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their 
hypocritical attention to trifles, which led them to regard with anx- 
ious solicitude the most external minutic, while they carelessly over- 
looked the profoundest moral principles. The Mosaic law did not 
extend the payment of tithes to every trifling item, but the little- 
minded Rabbins placed the proper service of God in the most rig- 
orous application of the precept. The plants mentioned are of little 


* Compare Lightfoot on the passage. This application of the words renders the 
meaning somewhat piquant; the φιλάργυροι, money-lovers, thought the oath by their 
God, mammon, had the greatest force (Luke iv. 14). 

+ This idea, which evidently lies at the foundation of the whole argument of Jesus, 
forbids the reference of the word "κατοικήσας (ver. 21) to the wealth in the temple. 


206 Matruew XXIII. 25, 26. 


use, and without wny particular value. (Ἡδύοσμος 1s synonymous 
with μίνθα or μίνθη, mint, mentha,—’Ar7Oor is dill, anethum.—Kvju- 
νον, cuminum, cummin. Similarto the Hebrew y#2 Isaiah xxviii. 25, 
27.—Luke, in the parallel passage xi. 42, has the general term πᾶν 
λάχανον, under which these plants may be classified ; and after- 
wards the particular πήγανον, corresponding with the Latin ruta, 
rue. )—Matthew specifies κρίσις, ἔλεος, πίστις, judgment, mercy, faith, 
as the parts of the law which are truly difficult of observance (ex- 
ternal precision being represented as merely an evasion of the diffi- 
culty) ; Luke, on the contrary, speaks of κρίσις, judgment, and ἀγάπη 
Θεοῦ, the love of God. The word ἀφήκατε (instead of which Luke has 
παρέρχεσθε) necessarily leads to the conclusion that the objects named 
are matters which relate to the actions of men. The “love” of Luke 
is therefore related to the “mercy” of Matthew, for mercy is only 
love in its exercise towards the sufferer. This the Pharisees did not 
practise ; they merely maintained strict justice. The term κρίσις is 
equivalent to δικαιοσύνη (comp. Isaiah xi. 4, according to the LXX), 
This expression, however, does not here signify strict justice, for the 
Pharisees certainly sought to practise that ; it is rather to be taken 
like 5px, in the signification of ‘‘ goodness,” ‘‘ forbearance” (comp. 
the remarks on Rom. iii. 21), Hence κρίσις, judgment, is the general 
term, and ἔλεος, mercy, the particular. Matthew adds to both πίστις, 
faith, by which we are not to understand merely right notions con- 
cerning God and Divine things, for the Pharisees possessed these 
also ; but that state of mind in which man is capable of receiving 
Divine influences. Finally, it may be remarked that the Lord did 
not repudiate the exact observance of the precepts of the law. In 
accordance with Matth. v.19, the Saviour approves of the exact 
fulfilment even of those commands in the Old Testament which ap- 
pear unimportant. But the rigorous spirit in trifles cherished by the 
Pharisees, on the one hand, and the shameless contempt of the law 
manifested in their conduct, on the other, deserved the rebuke 
which the Lord gave them. The proverbial phrase introduced, ver. 
24, is a censure upon this combination of the most glaring unfaith- 
fulness towards the commands of God in things spiritual, with the 
most rigorous exactness in things external. 

(Διεύλέξζω, to filter, to strain through. On the use of the word in 
the Greek versions of the Old Testament, compare Schleusner in his 
Lex. to the LXX., vol. i. p. 1177.---Κώνωψ, antithesis to κάμηλος, a 
little insect in the wine, which was carefully removed as unclean, 
- by the rigid observers of the law, before they drank. The camel, as 
a large unclean beast, is contrasted with the insect.) 

Ver. 25, 26.—The mention of drink leads the Redeemer, sixthly, 
to rebuke the hypocrisy which induced the Pharisees, with the ut- 
most solicitude, to cleanse the outside (of vessels), while they left 


MatrHew XXIII. 25, 26. 207 


that which was within in a state of defilement. They viewed the 
laws of the Old Testament respecting purification, as they did the 
rest, merely in their external aspect, regardless of the idea on which 
they were founded. (Instead of παροψίς, which the Attics use to 
signify not the dish but the viand, Luke xi. 39 has zévat.)—By 
ἔσωθεν, within, we are to understand the contents of the dish, as 
acquired by impure actions ; the words, ‘‘ give alms” (δότε ἐλεημοσύ- 
νην), Luke xi. 41, plainly speak to this effect. But since property 
obtained by sin is not, as such, impure, except in so far as it is con- 
nected with the state of the mind, the ‘ outside” (ἔξωθεν) also ne- 
cessarily has relation to this; the inward and outward cannot here 
be separated. And accordingly, ver. 26, the Redeemer associates 
with internal, external purification, as also in reality deserving to 
be called the fulfilment of the Divine laws—(The ordinary reading 
ἀκρασίας appears preferable to ἀδικίας, although the latter has been 
adopted by Griesbach, Schulz, and others. True, the manuscripts 
C.E.F.G.H.K.S. are in favour of ἀδικίας, whilst only B.D.L. read 
ἀκρασίας ; but the explanation of the origin of ὠδικίας from ἀκρασίας 
is evidently easier than the reverse ; especially if we suppose that 
the transcribers—upon comparing Luke, who has tovypiac—wished 
to form an agreement between the two Evangelists, which ὠκρασίας 
did not seem to allow.—Axpacia is here to be taken in the wide 
sense as signifying subjection to our passions, In 1 Cor. vii. 5, it is 
used in reference to sexual relations.) 

Luke has enlarged upon the above idea with peculiar additions 
(Luke xi. 40, 41), which are not without difficulties. These very 
difficulties, however, are the proof that the words certainly were 
originally uttered in this connexion. In the first place, the ques- 
tion “ Did not he who made that which is without, make that which 
is within also ?” (οὐχ ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἔξωθεν, καὶ τὸ ἔσωθεν ἐποίησε ;) was 
designed to convince the Pharisees of the perverseness of their effort 
to satisfy the laws of purity by external observance, whilst they 
themselves inwardly violated them. Then ver, 41 contains an ad- 
monition as to the way in which the external and internal purity 
may be united. The difficulty presented in the question is the sud- 
denness with which the Redeemer passes to the “ making” (ποιεῖν), 
whereas nothing in the preceding context appears to lead to such a 
transition. But the intermediate thought seems to be this: the 
reason why the Pharisees attended so punctiliously to outward puri- 
fication was simply the fact, that they endeavoured to fulfil the com- 
mands of God by the observance of prescribed ceremonies. The 
same God, however, whom they acknowledged as the lawgiver (hence 
as the supreme and original authority) in things external, was such 
in the internal world ; but in the latter they hypocritically with- 
drew themselves from his government. It cannot be said, in oppo- 


208 MarrHew XXIII. 27-33, 


sition to this view, that ἔσωθεν, within, must not be applied to the 
inward life, because ver. 41, τὰ ἐνόντα, the things therein,*™ refers to 
the viands ; for it has already been remarked that articles of food 
(and earthly possessions generally) as such, cannot be meant, be- 
cause no unrighteousness could adhere to them apart from the 
moral feeling of the possessor ; and on this account also the ap- 
peal to that wsus loguendi, which employs ποιεῖν ---- mez, in the sense 
of purifying (comp. Gesenius in his Lex. under the word), must 
here be rejected. (Moreover, to establish that hypothesis, the sen- 
tence must be deprived of its interrogative form ; and besides this, 
the aorist ἐποίησε, made, is not compatible with it.) The reference 
to the one true lawgiver of the internal and external worlds, then, 
very naturally leads to the exhortation that true purity should be 
sought according to his will. This, however, consists in a change of _ 
mind ; and hence the Lord commends, instead of covetousness, a 
kind and liberal disposition, which devotes the mammon of unright- 
eousness (μαμμωνᾶς ἀδικίας) to the purposes of philanthropy (comp. 
Luke xvi. 1, ff), Here, again, therefore, the expression τὰ ἐνόντα, the 
things therein, relates to that which is external in connexion with 
the state of the mind ; it is only the change in the latter that gives 
an ethical import to the use of the former. 

- Ver, 27, 28.—The impurity of the Pharisees, in respect to ava- 
rice and lust of gain, leads the Lord, in the seventh place, to censure 
that general moral corruption which they endeavoured to conceal 
under the garb of an apparent righteousness (δικαιοσύνη). For this 
purpose he compares them to tombs that contain putrefaction within, 
but appear beautifully garnished without. (Kovidw or κονιάζω, “to 
coat with lime,” “to whiten ;” it occurs again Acts xxii. 8.) In 
Luke xi. 44 the figure is slightly modified ; the Pharisees are there 
compared to hidden graves (μνημεῖα ἄδηλα) over which men walk 
without observing them, and so become defiled. But the compar- 
ison in Matthew is the more appropriate, since it also expresses 
figuratively the outward appearance of righteousness assumed by 
the Pharisees. 

Ver. 29-33.—In the eighth and last place, the Saviour passes 
from the graves with which he compares the Pharisees, to the 
monuments which they ostentatiously erected to the ancient pro- 
phets, arrogantly persuading themselves that the evil principle 
which had borne such bitter fruits in their fathers, had no root in 
their hearts. From this Christ draws the conclusion that they wit- 
ness against themselves, and enable men to recognize them as the 
posterity of those who murdered the prophets: so far from seeking 
to atone for the guilt of their race by true repentance, they endea- 
voured to justify themselves by accusing their ancestors, and yet at 


* i. ¢., in the vessel. Com. Ver. “Such things as ye have.”—[K. 


MatTHew XXIII. 29-33. 209 


the same time completely filled up the measure of their guilt to their 
own destruction.* 

This passage presents a difficulty as to the relation of the sin of 
ancestors to that of their posterity ; the Lord here seems to re- 
proach the Pharisees with that asa matter of guilt to them, whereas 
guilt seems incurred only by personal sin. But in these words 
Christ expresses nothing more than the Old Testament teaches in 
the passage, Exod. xx. 5, where it is said : God visits the sin of the 
fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation ; the 
same doctrine as we find fully developed in Rom. v. 12, ff. The 
V2 72, visiting sin, necessarily presupposes the existence of the sin 
of the fathers in the cluldren, since the just God can punish sin only: 
where it exists. The idea is easily explained to the Christian con- 
sciousness, if we proceed from the fundamental principle of Scrip- 
ture, that individual men must not be viewed as altogether iso- 
lated, but as members of the community ; and hence it is equally 
the curse of sin, and the blessing of righteousness, that they do not 
affect merely individual sinners or righteous persons, but those also 
who are connected with them. As in external matters the extrava- 
gance of the father makes the children beggars, so the sin of parents 
injures their offspring. The false conclusions that might be drawn 
from this principle are easily removed by the consideration that to 
every member of the posterity there is a possibility of receiving for- 
giveness of sins by true repentance, if he faithfully use the means 
of salvation placed within his reach.t Throughout the Old Testa- 
ment, however, the principle just pointed out, that it is a blessing 
to have pious ancestors, and a curse to have ungodly ones, prevails ; 
while, on the contrary, in the New Testament, the corporeal con- 
nexion is kept more out of view, because the doctrine of a new birth 
by the Spirit is there clearly developed. But here the Redeemer is 
addressing persons who stood entirely on Old Testament ground, 
and therefore adopts an idea which in their case has its full truth. 
The Lord expressly distinguishes personal sin from the sin of the 
fathers: ‘‘And fill ye up the measure of your fathers” (καὶ ὑμεῖς 
πληρώσατε τὸ μέτρον THY πατέρων ὑμῶν). Here there is something 
strange in the words, μέτρον τῶν πατέρων, measure of your fathers— 
your measure (μέτρον ὑ μ Gv) 15 expected. But as the individual man 
may fill up the measure of forbearance granted to him by God, and 
thus come to destruction, so may a people, viewed as a body, or, as 
it were, as a larger individual. In this point of view the Redeemer 


* The use of the form ἤμεθα from ἤμην is of later date (comp. Winer’s Gram. Th. i. 8 
34). 

+ It is tothis that the words οὐκ ἠθελήσατε, ye would not, refer in the sequel, Matth. 
xxiii. 38. They were not given up to the consequences of their own sin, until they had 
frustrated all attempts to awaken in them the consciousness of it. Concerning the rela- 
tion of individuals to the mass, compare the more copious remarks on Rom. xi. 1. 


Vou. IT.—14 


210 Matthew XXIII. 29-33. 


designates the sin of Israel as one collective sin, commenced in the 
fathers, and brought to its climax in the dark deeds of the Phari- 
sees towards the Lord. (The reading πληρώσατε, fill up, is, on ac- 
count of its difficulty, unquestionably preferable to the easier read- 
ings ἐπληρώσατε or πληρώσετε, filled or shall fill. The imperative 
contains a mournful sarcasm on the contrast formed by the vocation 
of the Pharisees and their external righteousness, with their inter- 
nal sin. After they had stubbornly repulsed every effort of the gen- 
tle Redeemer to bring them to repentance, there remained nothing 
for him but to leave them to their destruction, with the words: 
now fill ye up the measure of your fathers. His language expresses 
the Divine permission, without which even the wicked man cannot 
consummate his wickedness. 

The Pharisees are, in conclusion, undisguisedly called a race of 
vipers (comp. the remarks on Matth. 11. 7), who carry within them 
the seed of their father, and do according to his works (John viii. 
44), The words may seem almost too severe in the lips of the Son 
of Love, but the very manifestation of love (which is also justice and 
truth) in its relation to wickedness, is, that it hates and condemns 
it. The compassionate Redeemer is the same being who treads the 
wine-press of God’s wrath (Isa, lxiil. 3; Rev. xix. 15). 

Luke (xi. 47, 48) has a parallel to these verses also ; but the 
peculiar way in which he modifies the idea renders it hardly 
probable that he has retained the original form of the Saviour’s 
language. Matthew evidently intends the οἰκοδομεῖν τὰ μνημεῖα, 
building the sepulchres (the parallel with κοσμεῖν, Matth. xxii. 29, 
makes it probable that οἰκοδομεῖν is here to be taken as “to 
renew,” ‘to restore”), as a symbolical expression for ‘‘ to recog- 
nize with honour.” Luke, on the contrary—as is skhewn by the 
words, ἄρα μαρτυρεῖτε καὶ συνευδοκεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν---- 
has taken the expression as parallel with ἀποκτείνειν, so that the fol- 
lowing sense arises, “‘ ye and your fathers are quite of one mind, and 
ye agree in your works ; they killed the prophets and ye build their 
tombs ; thus ye co-operate in their destruction.’ Hence, in the 
connexion of Luke, building sepulchres (οἰκοδομεῖν μνημεῖα) de- 
notes a hostile act with perhaps the accessory idea of hypocrisy. 
‘Ye appear to be performing a service of affection, while, in reality, 
ye are working hand in hand with your fathers.’ Storr applied 
the building of the sepulchres to the case of prophets living in the 
time of the Pharisees themselves—for example, the Baptist ; but 
then arises the difficulty that αὐτοί relates, in the one instance, to 
the ancient, and in the other, to the later prophets. True, this 
may be explained by viewing the whole class of prophets as the, ob- 
ject of the persecutions, and accordingly regarding the object in 
earlier and later times as one and the same ; but the difficulty may 


MattrHew XXIII, 34. 211 


be entirely removed if the passage be understood—as we have 
already interpreted it—to represent the Pharisees as accomplices 
in the murders committed by their fathers; the one killed, the 
others prepare the grave which is to hide the murder in eternal 
oblivion. (Συνευδοκέω ‘ to consent,” ‘to agree to anything cheer- 
fully.” Acts viii. 1, xxii. 20; Rom. i. 32. It occurs also in the 
Apocrypha, 1 Mace. i. 60 ; 2 Mace, xi, 24.) 

Ver. 34.—To the fearful threatening, πῶς φύγητε ἀπὸ τῆς κρίσεως 
τῆς γεέννης, how shall ye escape, etc., the Lord adds a remarkable 
declaration respecting the decrees of God. The mission of divinely- 
enlightened men, which brings peace and eternal life to those who 
feel the need of salvation, is an occasion of destruction to the im- 
pure and wicked. Christ is set (even in his messengers) for the fall 
and rising of many in Israel (Luke ii. 34). If we compare Luke, 
the passage is difficult. Whilst, according to Matthew, these words 
were spoken, by himself, in Luke xi. 49 they appear as a quotation : 
διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡ σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ εἷπεν - ἀποστελῶ κ. τ. A., for this reason 
the wisdom of God said, I will also send, etc. But no utterance of 
the kind is found either in the Old Testament or in any Apocryphal 
book ;* and an appeal to a prophecy not extant is by no means to 
be assumed, except in a case of extreme necessity. Now, a closer 
view of the words in Matthew shews, that even they cannot be so un- 
derstood as to imply that the Saviour, when he uttered them, spoke 
merely of the future messengers who should be sent forth by him— 
7. 6. the apostles and disciples ; for, ver. 35, mention is made of Abel 
and other ancient righteous men, Besides which, the aorist ἐφονεύσατε, 
ye murdered, has significance only as we understand by Zacharias 
some just man murdered at an earlier period ; and this confirms the 
hypothesis, that the Lord means by those of whom he speaks as sent 
forth, not merely the apostles, but also holy men and prophets of the 
Old Testament sent forth in earlier times. Then, if such be the 
case, the Redeemer does not speak in Matthew as a personage con- 
fined within the limits of our temporal life, but as the Son of God, 
as the essential Wisdom (Prov. viii; Sir. xxiv.; comp. the remarks 
on σοφία in the commentary on John i, 1), who is introduced as 
speaking in Luke, and by whose intervention all prophets and holy 
men of God, from the beginning, have appeared ( Wisd. Sol. vii. 27). 
Thus, strictly speaking, there is no essential difference between 
Matthew and Luke.f According to both, the eternal Wisdom, who 


* There are, however, some very kindred passages; for example, 2 Chron. xxiv. 19, 
which the LXX. render: καὶ ἀπέστειλε (Θεός) πρὸς αὐτοὺς προφήτας ἐπιστρέψαι πρὸς 
κύριον καὶ οὐκ ἤκουσαν, καὶ διεμαρτύρατο αὐτοῖς καὶ οὐχ ὑπήκουσαν. As the account of 
Zacharias follows, 2 Chron, xxiy. 20, it is very likely that the Lord had the citation of 
the Old Testament in view, and merely expanded it a little. \ 

+ De Wette (in his remarks on Luke xi. 49) hesitates to admit this; he thinks, on 
the contrary, that the expression contains a later doctrinal designation, similar to the 


912 Matrurw XXIII. 34, 


in Christ became man, declares the eternal purpose to send messen- 
gers to the people of Israel, and predicts the conduct of the people 
towards them (the present tense in Matthew, ἀποστέλλω, I send 
forth, denotes the pure eternal presence of God: Luke has the ex- 
planatory future). It is only as regards the form that Luke may 
be the original. The interpretation of the words is immediately 
added in Matthew, and Jesus himself spoken of as the Divine Wis- 
dom, This very interpretation, however, shews the transition to be 
somewhat irregular. For the expression ‘for this reason” (διὰ 
τοῦτο) which, in Luke, is in perfect harmony with the context (the 
sense being this: “‘ by your conduct ye only fulfil the purpose of 
the eternal Wisdom ; your fathers killed the prophets and ye build 
their tombs, therefore Wisdom said,” etc.), stands in Matthew without 
any proper reference. Fritzsche (in loc.) carries it back and connects 
it with πληρώσατε τὸ μέτρον, fill up the measure, ver 32. This cer- 
tainly gives a good sense, but it appears rather a difficult exegesis, 
on account of the intervening ver. 33. It seems to me more easy to 
supply εἶπεν ἡ σοφία, said Wisdom, a form of quotation which 
Matthew omits that Jesus may appear, without disguise, as the 
speaker. 

But now, if the form of the discourse in Luke be the original 
one, it becomes a question why the Lord chose this particular form 
to convey the idea which he wished to express. Probably it was 
from regard to the people ; even the well-disposed could not bear 
the thought that the eternal Wisdom spoke in Jesus (his disciples 
themselves found the conception difficult, John xiv. 9); and there- 
fore he drew a veil over it, which did not startle the weaker, and 
yet did not conceal the deeper knowledge from those of stronger 
powers of perception. It appears remarkable that the Redeemer 
(according to Matthew) designates some of those who should be 
sent, Scribes, γραμματεῖς (= er79te.) The expression is here used in 
the good sense, and in contrast with the Pharisaic Scribes ; we 
might supply, “I will send you men truly acquainted with the 
Word of God, who are that which ye ought to be and pretend to 
be.” One difficulty remains in Matthew in the word στανρώσετε, ye 
shall crucify. For as the Jews did not inflict the punishment 
of crucifixion, we cannot suppose that one of the ancient pro- 
phets had been crucified, nor has anything of the kind been known 
in later times. True, the instance of Simon (the ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου) 
who (according to Huseb, H. E. iii. 32, edit. Stroth. p. 169) was 
crucified, has been adduced. But since his death took place after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, and therefore after the threatened 


word λόγος in John, not suited to the lips of the speaker. But if Jesus, in John, calls 
himself the truth, the resurrection, the life, why sbould he not call himself also the 
wisdom. 


Matruew XXIII. 35. 213 


judgments had been executed, little attention can be paid to his case, 
Hence it is in the highest degree probable that the Redeemer in- 
cludes himself in the series of the Divinely commissioned messen- 
gers. And the fact that he represents himself as the author of the 
mission is explained by the twofold relation in which he could speak 
of himself ; at one time he could speak of his eternal and absolute 
existence ; at another of his personal manifestation in time. 

Ver. 35.—The prediction respecting the treatment of the mes- 
sengers of God is followed by a threatening of punishment. (The 
form αἷμα ἔρχεται ἐπί τινα, blood comes on one [Matth. xxvii. 25] de- 
notes the imputation of murder.*  Alua δίκαιον or ἀθῶον = p> Ἐπ. 
The expression is founded upon the idea that the blood is the sup- 
porter of the ψυχή, life, Deut. xii, 23.) The phrase ὅπως ἔλθῃ, that 
there may come, etc., must not be deprived of its peculiar force (as 
it would be, if taken [ἐκβατικῶς] as signifying consequence; on the 
contrary, it has reference to dd τοῦτο, and marks design); the diffi- 
cult idea that God sends messengers, in order that they may be re- 
jected, and the rejecters punished, is to be explained in the same 
way as the passage, Matthew xui. 13, ff, where consult the inter- 
pretation. 

The first difficulty in this verse is in the words “upon you.” It 
‘you” be applied to the Pharisees who were actually present, it does 
not appear on what ground they were to be responsible for all the 
blood of righteous persons that had been shed ; and if it be taken 
as meaning the whole nation, inclusive of previous generations, 
this seems unsuited to a discourse addressed to a definite num- 
ber of individuals. The simplest solution of the difficulty is that 
Jesus looked upon the Pharisees and Scribes as representatives of 
the whole people, so that the entire body is to be viewed in them, 
Regarding them thus, Jesus could with propriety say: “1 send to 
you prophets ;” because even the Pharisees, in connexion with the na- 
tion at large, might have obtained benefit from their mission, the 
efficacy of which extended to the whole mass, But, in the second 
place, the expression é«yuvduevov ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, shed upon the earth, 
appears hyperbolical, since the Pharisees cannot be deemed respon- 
sible for the murder of righteous persons among all nations. Here, 
however, we must not overlook the circumstance, that in this pas- 
sage of course no reference is made to individuals distinguished by 
a natural righteousness, such as even Pagans possessed, but to men 
enlightened by the Spirit of God. However much we may be inclined 
to follow Justin Martyr in supposing an operation of the λόγος σπερ- 


* Luke xi. 50, 51, has instead of this, the formula, ἐκζητεῖν αἷμα ἀπό τινος, according 
to the Hebrew bn tp. 

+ Better: as representatives of the then existing generation. Upon them was the 
curse (threatened Deut. xxviii.) to come (Anno 70), which all successive generations had 
accumulated.—[E. 


214 Matruew XXIII. 35. 


ματικός in the minds of such men as Zoroaster, Plato, and others, 
yet we must ever draw a specific distinction between the illumina- 
tion of wise Pagans like these, and the illumination of the infallible 
messengers of God to his people. The main operation of God upon 
the human mind was confined entirely to the prophets and wise men 
in the nation of Israel ; and hence the guilt of Israel in despising 
and abusing the messengers of God, whose vocation to that office 
had been proved by special evidence, might truly be spoken of as 
equal to that which had destroyed the holy ones of the earth. Abel 
is mentioned as the first of these holy ones, because he may be 
viewed, in contrast with Cain (1 John iii. 12), as the representative 
of the whole generation of saints. Moreover, it was not unusual 
with the Rabbins to regard as prophets the antediluvian posterity 
of Seth, who took the place of Abel. (Comp. the remarks on 2 
Pet. ii. 5; Jude ver. 14.) Now, the first murdered saint, of whom 
mention is made in Genesis, is here placed in juxtaposition with the 
last instance of the murder of a prophet recorded in the sacred 
Scriptures of the Old Testament—viz., that of Zacharias, (comp. 2 
Chron. xxiv. 21). What is there said of him is quite in harmony 
with the words of Matthew as well as with those of Luke (the lat- 
ter only has οἴκου instead of ναοῦ); it is stated that he was stoned 
(at the command of King Joash) in the court of the Temple 
(according to the LXX., ἐν αὐλῇ οἴκον κυρίου). The θυσιαστήριον, 
altar, of which the Evangelists write, is the great altar of burnt 
offering that stood in the open air at the entrance of the building 
which strictly formed the temple. The agreement of the words be- 
fore us with that event, as also the use of the aorist (ἐφονεύσατε), 
render it in the highest degree probable that the Lord alludes to 
that passage in the Chronicles. It is, however, a remarkable cir- 
cumstance, that the Zacharias there mentioned was not a son of 
Barachias, but of Jehoiada (2in7, in the LXX. Ἰωδάς). The 
hypothesis that Zacharias had two fathers, a natural one and one 
who performed the duties of a father ; or that the prophet Zacha- 
riah, some of whose visions are preserved in the canon of the Old 
Testament, is meant, because he was a son of Barachias (although 
nothing is known about his death in the temple); or that originally 
the reading was υἱὸς Ἰωδάς (according to Jerome, the Nazarenes had 
this reading in their gospel ; comp. my Gesch. der. Ev. 5. 77), are 
all to be rejected as arbitrary. The only question that remains to 
be considered is, whether the Zacharias mentioned by Josephus (B. 
J. iv. 6, 4), a son of Baruch, who was murdered by the zealots in 
the temple, can be the person referred to. The following reasons 
lead me to think this altogether improbable ; 1, The name Baruch is 
not identical with Barachias ("79"); 2, The Zacharias spoken of 
by Josephus was not a prophet—and, in the present case, everything 


MattHew XXIII. 36-39. 215 


depends upon this point, for the subject in hand is the murder of 
messengers expressly sent to the people by the wisdom of God ; 3, 
The tense (ἐφονεύσατε, ye murdered), is not consistent with such an 
interpretation, since at the time when Jesus uttered these words, 
the murder of the Zacharias of whom Josephus speaks was yet fu- 
ture. (The enallage temporum, which some authors have supposed 
here, is quite untenable.) Hence, if we simply keep in view the 
circumstance that it was the intention of Jesus to cite instances 
from the first and the last books of Scripture (according to the posi- 
tion of books in the original text), in order to shew that this conduct 
towards the messengers of God in that portion of the race which 
was given up to sin, ran through the whole history of that race from 
the beginning (according to Luke xi, 50, ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου); then 
no important objection can be urged against the reference to the 
passage in 2 Chron. xxiv.21. The supposition that Matthew may 
have confounded the name of the father of the person murdered 
with that of the father of Zachariah, whose prophecies are pre- 
served in the canon of the Old Testament, contains nothing at 
which we need stumble, and it is better to adopt this than to pro- 
fess adherence to a forced interpretation.* 

Ver. 36.—The Lord declares, that all this innocent blood of the 
servants of God that has been shed (πάντα ταῦτα must not be taken 
as referring to the previous denunciations of woe, as is shewn in the 
parallel passage of Luke xi. 51, where ἐκζητηθήσεται is again used) 
shall now manifest its results in this generation. (In Luke xi. 50 also 
the words ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης are to be connected with ἐκζητηθῇ, 
as ver. 51, not with ἐκχυνόμενον ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου.) By γενεὰ 
αὕτη, this generation, we are to understand the men living at that 
time (a nation is never called yeved in the New Testament, or even 
in profane Greek literature);+ these are viewed as ripe evil fruit, as 
persons in whom the sin of the whole body of their ancestors was 
concentrated, and as thus calling down the great judgments of God. 
There is in this no denial of the fact that earlier generations who 
had died, were guilty, or were punished ; but the growth of sin is as- 
serted—the children of those who killed the prophets were matured 
into murderers of Christ. 

Ver. 37-39.—The last verses of this long discourse have already 
been explained in the remarks on Luke xiii, 34, 85.—There they 
stood in such a peculiar and exact connexion, that we could not but 


* Neither on the part of Jesus nor of the Evangelists is such an error, such igno- 
rance of the Old Testament conceivable. It is far more natural to assume that Jehoiada 
was not the father, but the grandfather of Zachariah; (Jehoiada had already died, and 
at an age of 130 years, 2 Chron. xxiv. 15, before Zachariah had been called to the pro- 
phetic office) and that an oral tradition (whether well founded or fabulous, at all eventa 
current in the time of Jesus) preserved the name of the father of Zachariah.—[E. 

¢ Concerning yeved, compare also the remarks on Matth. xxiv. 34. 


216 MattrHew XXIII. 87-39. 


consider their position in that passage as the original one. Never- 
theless, Matthew also has used them, in a most suitable connexion, 
and, by means of them, has formed a very fine transition to chap. 
xxiv.; for in ver. 89 mention is made of the second coming of 
Christ. And although Jerusalem is here accused as the disobedient 
and faithless party—whereas, up to this point, the discourse was 
directed against the Pharisees—the difference extends only thus 
far, that instead of individuals, the theocratic metropolis, in which 
they ruled, and whence they exercised their influence upon the whole 
nation, is now spoken of. 

Another important point in this passage is suggested by the ex- 
pression οὐκ ἠθελήσατε. ye would not, compared with the kindred 
passage Luke xix, 42, in which the fact of their slighting salvation 
is ascribed to ignorance. If either the one or the other statement 
were regarded as absolute, an inconsistent meaning would arise. 
Total ignorance would exclude guilt; total want of will would ex- 
clude all possibility of conversion. But the two representations 
viewed relatively, mutually explain each other. No one among the 
Pharisees could have continued without some impression of the 
Divine dignity of the Redeemer ; but instead of yielding their minds 
to this impression, they thrust it away from them ; and thus, while 
they excluded all deeper and more substantial knowledge of Christ 
and of his appointment for their eternal salvation, this ignorance 
rooted itself in their original unwillingness, and therefore was in 
the highest degree criminal. Still, however, under such circum- 
stances, there remained a possibility of conversion, since deeper 
knowledge, if once imparted, might yet produce repentance ; hence 
the discourse is concluded (ver. 39) with a glance at the time when 
the Redeemer, who was unrecognized in his humble condition, shall 
appear in glory, and shall then be greeted by many even among 
those who now rejected him. (Comp. the remarks on Luke xii. 35.) 
The agreement between this thought and the foregoing language of 
ver. 33 is easily seen, if in the former (ver. 83) we assume an ob- 
durate perseverance in the old state of feeling, in the latter a change 
of mind. 


* This idea is a most instructive comment on the doctrine of man’s free will. The 
power of the Almighty appears as impotence before the obstinacy of the creature, and 
has nothing but tears (Luke xix. 41) with which to overcome it. But these very tears of 
purest love excite the mightiest energy, for they determine the resisting will into free 
affectionate sympathy; and this cannot be accomplished by omnipotence, becausé om 
nipotence cannot will it. 


Marx XII, 41-44 217 


§ 8. Tue Girt or THE Wipow 
(Mark xii. 41-44; Luke xxi, 1-4.) 


The following little narrative of the widow, whom Jesus ob- 
served at the treasury, is inserted by Mark and Luke not merely on 
its own account ; it stands in strictest harmony with the connexion. 
Both Evangelists hint only in few words at the anti-Pharisaic dis- 
course of Christ, before they relate the case of the widow ; but these 
brief intimations contain the very feature that places the avarice of 
the Pharisees in the most glaring light, viz., that by fair speeches 
and under religious pretexts, they got from poor widows all that 
they had. Immediately upon these follows a description of a widow 
who offered her all to God from spontaneous love, and this poor 
woman is commended, It was evidently intended that the con- 
trast resulting from this juxtaposition of the two characters should 
strengthen the picture of the sinful character of the Pharisees. 
They strove, with a purely worldly aim, after earthly possessions, 
which they often appropriated to themselves in unlawful ways, 
and then from these they gave to God a scanty alms ; the widow 
loved God with all her heart and all her mind, and she offered to 
him her all. The widow, as the symbol of genuine self-denying and 
self-sacrificing love, is contrasted with the Pharisees, the represen- 
tatives of hypocrisy and mock-religion. Now, it is singular that in 
this interesting and instructive little narrative, the Lord represents 
the offerings placed in the treasury (γαζοφυλάκιον) as in fact gifts 
brought to God ; whereas it would surely seem that these treasures 
of the temple were only the property of a selfish priesthood, and 
that therefore it would have been better not to give encourage- 
ment to their avarice by fresh contributions. But Christ even here 
views the theocratic institutions in their actual existence and accord- 
ing to their ideal purpose, which, although marred by abuse, could 
never be destroyed. Accordingly, the treasures of the temple had 
an appropriate designation in being devoted to the maintenance of 
the whole external temple worship, and, in a legal point of view, a 
contribution to those treasures was justly regarded as an offering 
brought to God himself. Hence, the act of the widow, judged only 
from the motive, not from outward appearance, is, for all circum- 
stances, an illustration of leve that is wholly self-denying ; and this 
is what the narrative was dexzned to inculcate, in contrast with the 
feigned love of the Pharisees, 

The two reports of Mark and Luke are in the main harmonious, 
and, indeed, often agree so exactly (comp. Mark xii. 44, with Luke 
xxi, 4), that a use of the same Greek text (probably Mark has here 


218 MatrHew XXIV. 1. 


used Luke) might be supposed. Mark, however, according to his 
custom, has cast his narrative in a somewhat larger mould, and 
added some single features which enliven it. (For example, see ver. 
43, the words προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ.) The place in 
which the incident occurred was the so-called court of the women ; 
there stood thirteen brazen vessels shaped like trumpets (which, on 
account of this form, were called ninpiv), into which those who 
visited the temple cast their gifts. (Comp. Winer in his Reallex.) 
[One γαζοφυλάκιον, treasury, and that a single object standing by the 
wall, is mentioned Jos, Ant. 19. 6. 1. It is this which is here in- 
tended, and which is not to be confounded with the treasure reposi- 
tories (γαζοφυλακίοις) which the rich Jews subsequently constructed 
in the temple during the siege. Jos. Bell. Jud. v. 5, 2; vi. 5, 2.] 
The poor widow (Luke has πενιχρός -- πένης, "5", which does not oc- 
cur elsewhere in the New Testament) dropped in two of the small- 
est coins (comp. the remarks, Luke xii. 59, on the word λεπτόν), 
which, however, constituted all her property. (Comp. Luke viii. 
43, xv. 12, where βίος, living, occurs in the same signification, 
Mark explains it, “all that she had” (πάντα ὅσα εἶχεν). Hence it is 
observed that she gave more (πλεῖον) than the rich—she gave ἐκ τῆς 
ὑστηρήσεως αὑτῆς, of her deficiency. This expression forms the an- 
tithesis to the περισσεῦον, abundance, of the rich, and thus acquires 
its precise meaning. As it is said, ‘‘she cast in of her deficiency” 
(ὑστέρησις, Luke ὑστέρημα), the statement cannot imply an absolute 
want of resources, but merely a relative one; so that the sense is 
—‘under the impulse of self-sacrificing love, she gave so much of 
her small property, that it might be said she had nothing left, while 
the rich gave but little in proportion to their vast possessions.” 


§ 9. Prepictions or Jesus Resprctine THE Last Tunes, 
(Matth. xxiv. l—xxv. 46. Mark xiii. 1-37. Luke xxi. 5-38.) 


In regard to the form of the great prophetic discourse of Christ, 
with which Matthew concludes his account of the residence of Jesus 
in Jerusalem before his sufferings, it may be observed, that this 
again evidently manifests itself as a composition of the Evangelist. 
Matthew has here collected together the predictions concerning the 
Saviour’s advent, uttered by him at different times and under vari- 
ous circumstances. True, there can be no doubt that, during the 
last sojourn of Christ in Jerusalem, he delivered a longer discourse 
respecting the events to be anticipated. It was to be expected that 
the Lord, when about to leave his own, would give them some guid- 
ing lights as to the future ; and the harmony of all three Evangel- 


MatrHew XXIV. 1. 219 


ists in their statements about the time, place, and general contents 
of the discourse, is a guarantee for the correctness of their report ; 
but the mode in which Luke (especially chap. xvii.) places elements 
(occurring, according to Matthew, in this discourse) in their appro- 
priate historical connexion with other occasions and localities, renders 
it in the highest degree probable that Matthew here again, in ac- 
cordance with his custom, has blended kindred thoughts, spoken at 
different times, into the last principal discourse. [?] Still, the pas- 
sages which we find only in Matthew, especially the fine parables 
concerning the advent of Christ (Matth. ΧΧΥ.), are so exactly adapt- 
ed to the last days of Christ’s intercourse with his disciples, as to 
leave no doubt that, in transferring these to this period, he has 
given his account with more precision and fullness than the other 
Evangelists. But however certain it may be that here, as in other 
instances, Matthew has given us a union of separate discourses, 
yet we must deny that this discourse, as he reports it, is an incon- 
gruous whole. Schleiermacher (iiber die Schriften des Le. 5, 217, 
ff.) has directed special attention to the circumstance that those 
passages of the large discourse (Matth. xxiv.), which in Luke stand 
in a different connexion, completely interrupt the train of thought 
in Matthew. This scholar remarks, in the first place, that Matth. 
xxiv. 42 is immediately connected with ver. 36, and that the inter- 
vening verses, received from Luke xvii. 23, ff. into Matthew, are not 
at all suited to the context of the latter Evangelist. Because since 
God commanded Noah to build the ark precisely at the right time, 
this was just as much as if he had revealed to him the day and 
hour ; and hence the admonition to watch, because they knew not 
the hour, was inappropriate. But this position would seem unten- 
able ; for the general direction which Noah received to build the 
ark did not by any means involve a disclosure of the day and hour ; 
rather it was in his following the command of God, without know- 
ing the day or the hour, that Noah evinced his faith and obedience. 
In like manner, also, the disciples were told that the coming of the 
Lord was near, and, in conformity with this admonition, they were 
to prove their faith by watchfulness.—The other observation of 
Schleiermacher, that Matth. xxiv. 27 does not harmonize with ver. 
26, is equally untenable. He is of opinion that a warning to the 
disciples against going forth to the false Messiah, could. not be 
founded on the immediateness and universality of Christ? 5. coming 

but rather on the fact of his not yet having come. But the ubiquity ἢ) 
of his advent is here referred to, not as a reason for their not going 
forth, but as a sign by which the advent of the true Messiah may ts 
distinguished from that of pseudo-Christs. And the introduc- 
tion of such a sign is quite in place here, while the language of the 
following verse (ver. 28) conveys the same meaning—only under the 


220 MattHew XXIV. 1. 


form of another figure—viz., that the advent of the Son of Man is 
sudden, and its approach depends upon the increasing corruption ot 
the world.—According to Schleiermacher, however, the most remark- 
able instance of the want of connexion in Matthew occurs in ver. 
29. For, le observes, it appears from this verse that the sign of the 
Son of Man, and the Son of Man himself, should follow that coming 
(παρουσία) which is compared to lightning ; whereas, on the con- 
trary, ver. 29 would come very well immediately after ver. 24. But 
this remark is also without weight ; for in ver. 27 the Parousia 
(παρουσία, advent) is not spoken of in its historical relation to other 
events, but we have there merely a preliminary sign of the true Pa- 
rousia, whereby it might be distinguished from the appearance of false 
Christs. Hence it is quite consistent that in ver. 29, should follow 
the fuller exposition of the historical circumstances which precede 
the actual Parousia.* In this discourse also, with all the freedom 
of its composition, Matthew discovers great skill and power in the 
arrangement of the thoughts. Proceeding in a strictly logical man- 
ner, he speaks first of the political and moral corruption that should 
take place ; then passes on to those commotions in the heavenly re- 
gions which precede the great catastrophe ; and after giving a 
description of the care exercised by God over his faithful ones at 
the time of his arrival, finishes with appropriate exhortations. 

In regard to the contents of the discourse, we are first briefly to 
consider the relations of the accounts of the synoptical Evangelists 
to the representation of John in his Gospel. Now, although John 


also speaks of the advent of Christ and the judgment (v. 21, ff, viii. 


* Qlshausen’s view in opposition to Schleiermacher is unquestionably just, but not, 
perhaps, stated with quite sufficient distinctness. From ver. 23, ‘‘Then if any one say to 
you,” &c., to ver, 29, κ᾿ And immediately after the affliction,” &c., the verses are episodical, 
the main description being suspended in order to warn the disciples against false Christs 
and prophets whom the occasion will produce. He intimates the manner in which they 
will come, “in the desert,” ‘‘in the chambers,” in places more or less secluded and con- 
cealed; and then gives them the grand token by which the coming of the true Messiah 
may be distinguished from all these counterfeit appearances, His appearance will not be 
secluded, and partial, but, like the lightning that flashes across the whole face of heaven, 
it will be open, instantaneous, and universal. He closes this digression with a statement 
in brief and striking language, of the cause of this swarming of the false prophets, —“‘ where 
the carcass is, will be gathered the eagles:” i. e. such a disordered and decaying condition 
will naturally engender or attract all the corruption that will prey upon it. So Fleck in- 
terprets this last sentence, rightly, as I think. The yap, in which Olshausen finds his 
chief objection to the interpretation, is wanting in many MSS., and is rejected by Lach- 
mann and Tischendorf; yet it may even be retained without any unwarrantable ellipsis, 
‘and all this very naturally for,” &c.—But at all events, with v. 29 the succession of events, 
broken at ν. 23, is again taken up. It had been there stated that there should be great 
affliction (μεγάλη θλίψις), but shortened for the sake of the elect. The Saviour now 
resumes, “immediately after the affliction,” ete. (μετὰ τῆν θλίψιν κ. τ. Δ. Thus the inter- 
mediate passage is clearly parenthetical, the allusion to the mode of the Son of Man’s 
coming, like a flash of lightning, being introduced merely in passing as a means of dise 
tinguishing the spurious Messiahs from the true.—[K. 


Marruew XXIV. 1. 921 


15, 16. ix. 39, xii. 47, ff, xiv. 18), yet in his Gospel we do not find 
any such descriptions of outward occurrences which were to accom- 
pany them ; and hence it is undeniable, that there is a difference 
between the mode of expression adopted by the synoptical Evangel- 
ists and that employed by John, in reference to the doctrine of 
the last things. Still, however, it can by no means be said, that 
even the mode of expression adopted by the former differs from the 
general scope of Scripture in regard to this doctrine ; on the con- 
trary, very many of the descriptions in the twenty-fourth chapter 
of Matthew have their analogies in the Old Testament (the passages 
will be cited in the exposition of the several verses) ; and the Paul- 
ine writings (1 Thess. iv.; 2 Thess. ii.; 1 Cor. xv.), but above all, 
the Apocalypse presupposes the same view of this subject as Mat- 
thew gives in the chapter just mentioned. Now, whoever believes 
the Apocalypse to be a work of John, has a sufficient security, in 
its relation to his Gospel, for the fact that John did not hold a dif- 
ferent view from that presented by the synoptical Evangelists. But 
granting even that the Apocalypse is the production of another author 
(which, by the way, is not our opinion), still it must be conceded 
that the Gospel of John affords the only instance of deviation from 
the general mode of conceiving the doctrine in the Old as well as the 
New Testament. And since this deviation consists merely in omitting 
customary representations, nothing is more natural than to regard 
the difference of representation as not founded in a difference of views 
on the part of the writers, much less in any variation in the teaching 
of the Redeemer, but simply and solely in the special scope and aim of 
this work. The fact that the Gospel of John was designed for ideal- 
izing Gnostics who were not Jews, is quite sufficient to explain this 
and all its other peculiar variations from the synoptical Evangelists,* 

In the second place, as regards the contents of the discourse, a 
great difficulty of this section (especially ch, xxiv.) lies in its plac- 
ing in apparent juxtaposition circumstances which, according to the 
history, are separated by wide intervals. Obvious descriptions of the 
approaching overthrow of Jerusalemand the Jewish polity are blended 
with no less evident representations of the second coming of the Lord 
to his kingdom. It cannot be denied that those commentators who 
agree with the views always held by the church (among whom we 
must reckon Schott, the most recent interpreter of this section, in 
his well-known work, Comment. in Christi Sermones, qui de ejus 
reditu agunt, Jenze, 1820), treat the ideas in this section in a far 
less simple and straightforward manner than the rationalistic ex- 


* Fleck, in his work de regno divino, p. 483, exaggerates the differences, and thinks 
that Christ could only have spoken in the one way or in the other. But there is no ae- 
tual contradiction between the synoptical Evangelists and John; the latter merely omits 
what was not intelligible to his readers, or was not suited to their point of view 


222 MattHew XXIV. 1. 


positors.* Doctrinal views lead the former to attempt a separation 
of the elements which are blended in Matthew and the other Evan- 
gelists. Particularly Schott is of opinion that the description 
of the advent of Christ to his kingdom begins with ver. 29, ‘ and 
᾿ immediately after the tribulation, etc.,” and refers all that precedes 
only to the destruction of Jerusalem. But apart from the impos- 
sibility of interpreting ver. 29 itself as the commencement of some- 
thing entirely new and different, it is equally certain that the latter 
part of the description contains the most definite references to the 
present generation (comp. ver. 34) as that the former part plainly 
alludes to the last times. Hence we do not hesitate to adopt (with 
Fritzsche, Fleck, Schulz, de Wette) the simple interpretation—and 
the only one consistent with the text—that Jesus did intend to re- 
present his coming as contemporaneous with the destruction of 
Jerusalem, and the overthrow of the Jewish polity.f However, 
this result of the exposition certainly requires a closer consideration, 
' in order to be understood in its harmony with the whole circle of the 
Saviour’s teaching. And in making such an inquiry, much assist- 
ance may be gained from observing that this proximity of the advent 
of the Lord to the time immediately at hand is not at all peculiar 
to the section before us. Besides the passages in the Gospels, most 
of which have already Leen discussed (Matth. x. 28, xvi. 27, 28, 
xxiii, 38, 39, xxvi. 64, and the parallels), statements of the same 
kind occur in almost all the writings of the New Testament (1 Cor. 
x 113, Phil iv, O35 2 Thess; τὶ ὦ, 1 Pet. iv: 5 1 solange 
James v.8; Rev. i. 1, 3, iii. 11, xxii. 7, 10, 12, 20), from which it is 
clear that the apostles expected the return of Jesus in their life- 
time. And asin the New Testament, so also in the prophets’ of 
the Old Testament, we constantly find the idea that the coming of 
the Messiah was near. (The well-known formula mm 5 ainp oc- 
curs very frequently, Ezek. xxx. 3; Joel 1]. 1,1.15; Isaiah xiii. 6; 
Obad. ver. 15; Zephan. i. 7, 14; Hagg. ii. 7.) Accordingly we 
may say that the coming of the Lord, whether the first or the last, 
has always been vividly anticipated as being at hand; and in no 
single passage, either of the Old or of the New Testament, is it stated 
that it will be dong delayed ; nay, this mode of expression is dis- 
tinctly condemned, for example, Matth. xxiv. 48. (This passage, 
Dan, vii. 14, is the only exception here ; but even in this case, 
seventy wecks being given, the metaphorical expression appears to 
conceal from the multitude the actual distance of the event.t 

* Concerning this doctrine compare the treatise of Baumeister in Klaiber’s Stud. B. 
i. Hy 2s, 219, ἘΠ 9.5. 1: ἢν B. ii, H.1, 5.1, £, ἘΠῚ 2,81, ἢν 

+ On this entire discourse and its interpretation compare with Olshausen (whose ex- 
planation I have left unchanged) my Kritik der Ey. Gesch, (Aufl. 2, § 102).—[E. 


1 The numerical statements in the Apocalypse are not designed to indicate the time 
at which the last great catastrophe will take place, but only the single epochs within 


> 


MattrHew XXIV. 1. 223 


Schott, indeed (loc. cit. 5. 413), thinks that intimations of the kind 
are found in the New Testament ; but in this he is mistaken. He 
appeals to passages, such as Matth. xxiv. 48, xxv. 5, 19 ; but these 
verses do not speak of the coming of the Lord as absolutely dis- 
tant, but merely as relatively so, in respect to persons expecting it. 
And in Luke xx. 9, in the parable of the vineyard, where the long 
absence of the Lord is mentioned, the reference is not to the re- 
moteness of the return of Christ, but to the long. period which 
elapsed since the time of Moses, during which God did not mani- 
fest himself to the people of Israel. Hence the difficulty that occurs 
here is founded in the general doctrine of Scripture respecting the 
last things, and can be solved only by a reference to the nature of 
prophecy generally, as well as to the peculiar character of the par- 
ticular fact in question—viz., the return of Christ. 

Now in regard to prophecy generaily, we agree with the idea so 
admirably developed by Hengstenberg (Christology of O. T. p. 217, 
ff.), that it is to be viewed as a spiritual vision. By virtue of this 
vision of the future, as something really present to their minds— 
(the best designation we can give of it is that of a perspective view)— 
the actual events indeed were accurately discerned by the prophets; 
but neither the distance of the event foreseen from the present to which 
they themselves belonged, nor the intervals between the individual 
objects beheld. This explains the fact, that in the prophecies of 
the Old Testament, the two appearances of Christ in humiliation 
and glory—although the prophets were cognizant of both—are not 
separated by wide intervals, but closely connected. The birth of the 
promised child (Isa. ix. 6, 7) is immediately succeeded by his peace- 
ful reign ; the springing of the rod from the stem of Jesse is directly 
followed by changes of nature (Isa. xi. 1--6); and so everywhere in 
the Old Testament, the first appearance of the Lord is viewed as 
only just preceding the full blessing that results from the second 


which the catastrophe itself will move on; the whole Apocalypse represents the Parousia 
of the Lord as immediately at hand—that is, as visible to the generation then living. 
How therefore any calculations of the time of the Lord’s advent, sufficient for anything 
more than our subjective need, can be justified by Scripture, it is difficult to understand, 
At the same time there is no more reason to favour any oversight of the most obvious 
signs that the great crisis approaches, or to cherish the assurance that the Lord will not 
yet come for a long season. History shews that, in all times in which the conflict be- 
tween light and darkness has been specially vigorous, there has also been manifested in 
the minds of believers a lively desire for the coming of the Lord; and yet it is equally 
true, that when a crisis has passed, the church has become conscious that two conditions 
connected with the last crisis yet remained unfulfilled. Between these two influences 
(which may be recognized as already at work in the time of the apostles, by comparing 
the two Epistles to the Thessalonians) a balance was always preserved, and indifference 
opposed as much as enthusiasm. The circumstance that Jesus did not deliver his dis- 
course in the presence of all the twelve disciples, but only before the three most matured 
among them, shews that the more preciso communications respecting his advent are not 
designed for all 


224 MatTtHew XXIV. 1. 


(Isa, liii., Ix. 1, lxi. 1; Jerem. xxiii. 5, ff., xxi. 81, ff, xxxiii. 14, ff; 
Ezek. xxxiv. 23, ff, xxxvi. 24, ff., xxvii. 24, ff.) 

Meanwhile, in the course of prophecy, we may observe an ad- 
vancing clearness ; that which in the Old Testament is as yet un- 
distinguished—the difference between the advent of Christ in hu- 
miliation and his advent in glory—appears perfectly marked in the 
Gospels ; and again, those things which are represented in the 
Gospels as contemporaneous, viz., the establishment of the kingdom 
of God and the judgment of the world (which are no more sepa- 
rated in the Gospels than the first and second advents of Christ are 
in the Old Testament), are in the Apocalypse accurately distin- 
guished. Now, as it is quite consistent with Scripture to suppose 
that the precise time when the last great catastrophes should hap- 
pen, was, and was designed to be, unknown to the prophets and 
apostles (comp. Matth. xxiv. 36; Mark xiii. 32; Acts i. 7), it re- 
mains for us simply to say, that the lively ardour of their desire for 
the manifestation of the Messiah, and their immediate vision of the 
event, induced them to picture it as close at hand. ‘True, indeed, 
these remarks cannot be applied to the Lord ; for although (Mark 
xii. 32) Jesus says of himself that he knows not the day of his 
coming, this ignorance cannot possibly be regarded as absolute. 
(Comp. the exposition of the passage below.) Hence, in order to 
justify such definite discourses as he delivered concerning the near- 
ness of his advent, we must contemplate more closely the nature otf 
the fact. 

Now, the primary reason why the declarations of Christ respect- 
ing the near approach of his coming, although they were not realized 
in their utmost sense, yet involve no error, is this—that it is an 
essential ingredient in the doctrine of the advent of Christ that it 
should be considerered every moment possible, and that believers 
should deem it every moment probable. A referring of it to an in- 
definite distance would have robbed it of its ethical significance. 
The constant expectation of the return of Christ is verified also by 
the fact that Christ with his kingdom is perpetually coming; it is 
relatively true that the history of the world is a judgment of the 
world, without superseding by the judicial agency of God, as 
already manifesting itself in the history of human development, the 
judgment as the concluding act of all developments. And precisely 
on this foundation rests the principle, that great events in history, 
wherein either the fulness of the blessing that is in Christ, or his 
severity against sin, is strikingly manifested, may be viewed as types 
of the last time—as a coming of Christ. To this category, so far 
as respects the fulness of blessing revealed by Christ, belongs the 
outpouring of the Holy Spirit. (In the language of John the word 
ἔρχεσθαι is undoubtedly used in reference to the manifestation of the 


MatrHew XXIV. 1. 225 


Lord in the spiritual world. Comp. John xiv. 18-23; Rev. ii. 5--16, 
iii, 8. In the last passage even the well-known phrase ἥξω ὡς 
κλέπτης, 1 shall come as a thief, is employed to designate a spiritual 
coming.) And, in relation to the manifestation of avenging justice, 
the fall of Jerusalem, with the ruin of the religious and political 
life of the Jewish people, may be viewed in precisely the same 
light. This latter event, like the flood in the days of Noah and the 
destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, is one of the chief 
types of the approaching separation of all into two classes—the 
righteous and the wicked ; and hence the Redeemer himself con- 
nects the description of the last great catastrophe with this fearful 
judgment. Nor is it at all consistent with the meaning of the pro- 
phetic representations to regard them as restricted in their reference 
to the one or the other of those events—for example, to look at 
everything as relating only to the destruction of Jerusalem ; on the 
contrary, each single occurrence is to be viewed in connexion with 
the whole. 

Another circumstance, by which the distinct declarations of the 
Lord, respecting the near approach of his advent, are completely 
removed from the province of error, is the conflict between freedom 
and necessity, which appears peculiarly prominent in this passage. 
On the one hand, the time of fulfilment is represented as fixed in 
the counsels of God (Dan. xi. 36; Acts 1. 7); on the other, the 
time seems uncertain, and open to be deferred or hastened by the 
faithfulness or unfaithfulness of men (Habak, 11. 3; 2 Pet. iii). 
This diverse and apparently contradictory mode of expression is 
quite analogous to the general relation of freedom and necessity, 
as it presents itself in reference to this subject. As everything future, 
even that which proceeds from the freedom of the creature, when 
viewed in relation to the Divine knowledge, can only be regarded as 
necessary; so everything future, as far as it concerns man, can only 
be regarded as conditional upon the use of his freedom. As obsti- 
nate perseverance in sin hastens destruction, so genuine repentance 
may avert it ; this is illustrated in the Old Testament, in the pro- 
phet Jonah, by the history of Nineveh, and intimated in the New 
Testament by Paul, when (like Abraham praying for Sodom) he 
describes the elements of good existing in the world as exercising a 
restraint upon the judgments of God (2 Thess, ii. 7); and 2 Pet. 
ili. 9, the delay of the coming of the Lord is viewed as an act of 
Divine long-suffering,* designed to afford men time for repentance. 
Accordingly, when the Redeemer promises the near approach of 
his coming, this announcement is to be taken with the restriction 
(to be understood in connexion with all predictions and judgments), 


* Compare also Acts iii, 19, where it is said: ‘“ Repent ye, that the time of refreshing 
may come.” 


Vou. I—15 


ν 


226 Martruew XXIV. 1. 


*‘ All this will come to pass, unless men avert the wrath of God 
by sincere repentance.” None of the predictions of Divine judg- 
ments are bare historical proclamations of that which will take 
place ; they are alarms calling men to repentance—of which it may 
be said that they announce something, in order that that which they 
announce may not come to pass. This isno more pleasing to the 
natural man than the grace of the Lord was to Jonah ; but it is none 
the less a Divine arrangement. Sin must be condemned, but whether 
God condemn it by the obstinacy of man, or man himself con- 
demn it, by receiving into himself the mind of God, depends upon 
man’s free-will, which, however, does not destroy the necessity in 
God, but consists in it, and through it. All generations, therefore, 
that have waited in vain, since the time of the apostles, for the ful- 
filment of the promise of the Lord’s external advent, have expe- 
rienced it internally, if they have spiritually found the Redeemer ; 
and the hour of death will afford every individual a perfect analogy 
to that which would be involved in the visible return of the Lord 
to each and all.* But to all succeeding generations, the prophecy 
of the Saviour (like all the parallel predictions of the Old Testa- 
ment prophets) remains valid in its full sense ; for, although names 
and forms may be changed, the opposing forces continue the same, 
and must at length bring to its climax the conflict described. 
Hence the prophecies of Scripture which have been, in one sense, 
fulfilled, still remain in another sense unfulfilled. The overlook- 
ing of these points accounts for the fact, that many expositors, with 
a good intention, but contrary to the simple meaning of words, 
would make a forced separation between events yet future, and that 
which is described as near—viz., the destruction of Jerusalem. 
Such a separation can never be substantiated from the mere lan- 
guage ; and since the whole teaching of Scripture is in harmony with 
our passage, nothing remains but to justify this form of Scriptural 
representation upon higher grounds, in the manner which we have 
attempted. 

In regard to the separate thoughts in the following prophecy con- 
cerning the last things, it may be observed, that it is by no means 
the design of the Lord to give a comprehensive survey of αἰ the cir- 
cumstances connected with his return. On the contrary, in the first 
portion of “he discourse (chap. xxiv.), he exhibits only that aspect 
of his coming which is calculated to excite fear, and describes the 
temptations and errors accompanying it in their succession (but 
rarely—e. g. Luke xxi. 28 ; Matth. xxiv. 831—is there any mention 


* Comp. the words of Hamann in Herbst’s Bibl. Christl. Denk. Th. i. s. 85—‘ The 
death of every man is the time when the manifestation of the coming of the Lord isin 
part fulfilled to hissoul. In this sense it is literally true that the time of the fulfilment 
is near 


MattrHew XXIV. 1, 2. 227 


of its consolatory aspect towards the saints), whilst the resurrection 
of the just, the kingdom of God, the general resurrection, and the 
judgment, are not spoken of. Only in the subsequent parables 
(Matth. xxv.) do we find the more definite statement, that his ap- 
pearing will be productive not less of happiness to believers and 
those living in love, than of condemnation to unbelievers. And 
even in these parables the single circumstances are not described in 
distinct succession, but they exhibit the whole as one grand picture 
into which all the separate features are compressed, The proper 
distance between the individual points, as, specially, between the 
general judicial proceedings of the Redeemer as set forth in the 
last parable of the sheep and the goats, and the scenes depicted in 
chap. xxiv., can be inferred only from the minute and amplified re- 
presentation of the Apocalypse. 

Ver. 1, 2.— According to the unanimous accounts of the three 
Evangelists, the conversation respecting the advent of the Lord 
originated in a definite occasion, of such a nature as almost 
necessarily to lead to it. It was at the decisive moment when 
the Redeemer quitted the Temple with his disciples, never again 
to enter it. As he withdrew, the gracious presence of God left 
the sanctuary; and the temple with all its service, and the 
whole theocratic constitution allied to it, was given over to destruc- 
tion. No moment in the life of the Saviour could have afforded a 
more seasonable opportunity to dwell on the coming catastrophes, 
and to leave a legacy with his disciples from which they might de- 
rive hints for their conduct in the threatening crisis, The whole of 
the following discourse is to be viewed in the light of an instruction 
to the disciples, who, as the appointed leaders of the church, needed 
an insight into things that would happen in the future ; in order 
that, on the one hand, they might not suffer shipwreck in their 
own faith, and, on the other, might be enabled to conduct the 
church through the perilous sea. When Jesus and his disciples 
passed out of the temple, the latter, having a presentiment that 
they should not enter it again with him, pointed him, with an ex- 
pression of wonder, to its mighty pile ; and upon this followed the 
declaration of the Redeemer, that the lofty fabric of the temple was 
approaching its destruction. (Ver. 1 ἐξελθών has reference to xxi. 
23. Mark xiii. 1 speaks of one of the disciples as the individual 
who uttered the words ; probably it was Peter, who [according to 
ver. 3] with John, James, and Andrew, questioned the Lord more 
closely on this great event. The temple, as it then stood, owed its 
completion to Herod, who had been engaged [comp. John 11. 20] for 
a long time in restoring it. Josephus gives an elaborate description 
of the magnificence of the temple. [Comp. Winer’s Realworterb, 
sub. verb.] The ἀναθήματα, offerings, mentioned by Luke, denote, 


— 298 MarrHew XXIV. 3. 


according to the classic signification of the word, offerings which 
were given in great numbers to the Temple at Jerusalem, and dis- 
played on the walls or in the porches and side buildings [the latter 
is the meaning of οἰκοδομαί]. The reading οὐ βλέπετε πάντα ταῦτα in 
the text of Matthew, ver. 2, is probably inferior to that supported 
by Fritzche and Fleck, which omits the negative. Only it is diffi- 
cult to explain how the οὐ got into the manuscripts. If it be re- 
tained in the text, as Schulz thinks it should, it must be taken, like 
Matth. vii. 22, as standing for οὐχί —= ¥>.) 

Ver. 3.—After this glance at the structure of the temple, the 
Lord goes with his disciples, as he was accustomed, over the Mount 
of Olives, to Bethany. On the summit of the mountain from which 
he could see the city and the temple, he sat down in the midst of 
a few of his disciples—those whom he treated with special confidence 
—and disclosed to them the future in asublime picture. The ques- 
tion of the disciples which led to those more minute disclosures is 
given with the most precision by Matthew ; Mark and Luke com- 
prehend the Parousia and the End (συντέλεια), which are both men- 
tioned by Matthew, under the general expression πώντα ταῦτα, all 
these things. But this very relation of the accounts of Mark and 
Luke to that of Matthew, furnishes us with a hint as to the true 
interpretation. The apostles viewed these two great events in im- 
mediate connexion with the destruction of the temple, and thought 
of the one as dependent on the other. Hence their inquiry has 
reference only to two objects. First they seek to know the time 
of the destruction of the temple ; and, secondly, they desire a sign 
(σημεῖον, nix) whereby, on the one hand, they may know the cor- 
rectness of the prophecy, and, on the other, may themselves recog- 
nize the proximity of the great events. Respecting the time, the 
Lord says only that it is very near ; but he gives them more than 
one sign, and thus puts them in a position to recognize the gradual 
approach of the fact. Now this fact includes two distinct parts 
which, although not identical, are so closely connected, that when 
the one takes place, the other does also. The word παρουσία (Par- 
ousia, presence) is the ordinary expression for the second coming 
of the Lord. (Matthew xxiv. 27, 37, 39; 1 Thessalonians ii. 19, 
iii, 13, iv. 15, v. 23; 2 Thessaionians 11. 1; James v. 7, 8.) With 
the classic authors παρουσία commonly signifies presence ; it has the 
same meaning sometimes in the New Testament, in the writings of 
Paul (2 Cor. x. 10; Phil. i. 26, 11. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 9) ; in other 
cases it is used in the sense of advent, and once (2 Pet. i. 16) it de- 
notes the incarnation of the Redeemer, as applied to his first com- 
ing. But it generally designates the second coming in glory, 
synonymously with ἐπιφάνεια, appearing (1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 
1,8. The same expression is also employed in the passage 2 Tim, 


MatrHew XXIV. ὃ. 229 


i. 10, in reference to the first advent of the Lord), and ἀποκάλυψις, 
revelation (1 Cor. i. 7; 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Pet. i. 7, 18 ; in the pass- 
age, Luke xvii. 30, the verb occurs.) In one instance (2 Thess. ii. 
8) we have the compound expression ἐπιφάνεια τῆς παρουσίας. Now 
as the prophets (according to the observation already made), did not 
make any chronological distinction between the coming of Christ in 
his humiliation, and his coming in glory (and this mode of treating 
the subject has its relative truth, because, having risen from the 
dead, he was exalted to the right hand of God, and rules in his 
church as the Prince of Peace) ; so, in the Gospels, the coming of 
Christ in glory is not distinguished from eternity, or from the crea- 
tion of the new heaven and of the new earth. The Apocalypse is 
the first place in which these events appear in their complete sep- 
aration. However, their connexion in the Gospels has not less re- 
lative truth than the union of the first and the second coming of the 
Lord in the Old Testament. For such a mighty victory of good 
over evil is represented as taking place upon the return of Christ at 
the resurrection of the just, and the establishment of the Lord’s 
kingdom, that this period may be considered as a: natural type of 
the final complete conquest. Accordingly the question, whether the 
words, συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος, end of the world, are to be understood as 
meaning the commencement of eternity, or the beginning of the Mes- 
slanic period,* must be dismissed (as we have already stated in our 
remarks on Matth. xii. 31), for in the representation of the apostles 
the two are united, and immediately associated with the destruction 
of Jerusalem. (In one case only, Heb. ix. 26, the expression re- 
lates to the whole time since the appearance of Christ in the flesh.) 
The only instances of its occurrence in the New Testament, are 
Matth,. xiii, 39, 40, 49, xxvii. 20. The LXX. have συντέλεια καιροῦ 
in the passage Dan. ix. 27, for πξϑ, The other writers of the New 
Testament, to express the same idea—the conclusion of the αἰὼν 
οὗτος and the beginning of the αἰὼν uéAAwy—use the forms ἔσχαται 
ἡμέραι (Acts 11. 17) ἔσχατοι χρόνοι (1 Pet. 1. 20), ἔσχατον τῶν ἡμερῶν 
(Heb. i. 2), καιρὸς ἔσχατος (1 Pet. 1. 5), ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα (John vi. 39, 40, 
etc.), ἐσχάτη ὥρα (1 John ii. 18), ἡμέρα ὀργῆς καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως (Rom. 
iil, 5; Rev. vi. 17, xi. 18), which correspond with the Old Testament 
expressions ; 62h nthe (Gen. xlix. 1; Isaiah ii. 2; Mic. iv. 1), 
pn yp (Dan. xii. 13), or merely yp (Dan. viii. 17, xi. 40) which 
answers to the Greek τέλος, Matth. xxiv. 6,14. The Lord, in re- 
plying to the question respecting the time and the sign of his com- 
ing, describes the approaching commotions as closely connected. 
and draws no distinction between his (invisible) Parousia at the 
destruction of Jerusalem, and the συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος separated 


* It is remarkable that we never find the expression συντέλεια τοῦ κόσμου : the word 
αἰών indicates the time of the world, which passes away, whilst the world itself remains 


230 MatrHew XXIV. 4, 5. 


from it by hundreds of years ; on the contrary, the advent in its 
great leading events is immediately associated with the present, and 
thus great impressiveness is given to the entire portraiture without 
its treading too closely upon the truth. 

Ver. 4, 5.—The Redeemer now exhibits in his discourse, that 
aspect of the coming events which was adapted to restrain the dis- 
ciples from prying into the future, from mere curiosity, and direct 
their thoughts to themselves. Jesus shews them that the approach- 
ing events will be of a very perilous nature, and that it will require 
all their strength of faith to guard themselves against falling into 
snares. As the first danger, the Redeemer mentions that men will 
rise up who will pretend to be the Messiah, and will seduce many. 
This temptation is again spoken of, ver. 11, 28, 24 (comp. with 
Mark xiii. 21, 22; Luke xvii. 23), because such phenomena will 
present themselves not only at the beginning of the birth-pangs of 
the new age, but will recur from time to time, till light gains the 
dominion over darkness. Moreover, ver. 28, 24 indicate progress in 
these sinful phenomena themselves, for there the Lord speaks of 
wonders wrought in the power of darkness which are not mentioned 
here. Among the false Christs (ψευδόχριστοι) and false prophets 
(ψευδοπροφῆται), however, a great distinction is to be made. Indi- 
viduals may be so carried away by fanatical zeal for the cause of re- 
ligion, as to delude themselves into the belief that they are mes- 
sengers of God ; such a case appears to be described, Ezek. xiii, 1, 
ff., where persons prophesying out of their own heart (623 78733), or 
men who follow their own spirit (69 anx sth), are spoken of in op- 
position to true prophets appointed by the Spirit of God. But, on 
the other hand, we may also conceive of wicked and conscious de- 
ceivers, who boldly pervert the faith of the people of God in the 
prophets, and in an expected Messiah, for their own avaricious or 
ambitious aims, It is not improbable that this latter class may 
have means of getting powers of darkness into their possession, and 
thus become all the more dangerous, in that they dazzle by their 
prodigies (τέρατα) the eyes of the unwary. Both the false Christs 
and the false prophets, however, must always be distinguished from 
the Antichrist (ἀντίχριστος) of John.* This epithet conveys the 
idea not of one person so named announcing himself as Christ, 
but of one who proceeding owt of the church, and forsaking it, con- 
tends against the entire Christian principle, and the Lord him- 


* I cannot agree with the opinion of Liicke (comp. his remarks on 1 John ii. 18), who 
thinks the idea expressed by the term ὠντίχριστος in John is different from that contained 
in the of him who “ opposeth himself,” ete. (ὠντικείμενος), of Paul (2 Thess. ii. 1, ff.) The 
description of Paul is quite in harmony with Dan. xi., and does not by any means ap- 
pear to denote a form of evil without the church. In the Apocalypse, the beast out of 
the sea, that opposes every thing Divine, and is fall of blasphemy, is parallel with Anti- 
christ, (Rev. xiii. 1, 8.) 


MatrHew XXIV. 6-8. 231 


self. The false Christs, on the contrary, are to be viewed as hav- 
ing no connexion with the Church, and merely giving themselves 
out—either consciously or unconsciously—to be Christ. Hence 
Antichrist is a more daring and fearful form of sin ; inasmuch as it 
denies the idea of Christ itself, whilst the pseudo Christ acknow/- 
edges it, but seeks to use it for its own ends. The circumstance, 
finally, that there is no record of any one having declared himself to 
be the Messiah before the destruction of Jerusalem (Theudas, Acts 
v. 36, and the Egyptians, Acts xxi, 88, represented themselves only 
as prophets), is to be regarded as shewing that the whole prophecy 
was not fulfilled at the time of the destruction of the city. It is 
well known that after that event many wretched men played the 
part of Messiah, and deceived credulous persons, I will mention 
only two; in ancient times Bar Chochba ; and in modern days 
Sabbatai Zehbi, who, in the seventeenth century, in Constantinople, 
finished his career by going over to Islam.* 

Ver. 6-8.—The Redeemer having thus described the tempta- 
tion that will result from the sin of men, proceeds to depict certain 
terrible physical events. The advent of the Lord appears to be a 
time of ripeness in evil as well as in good (Matth. xiii, 30) ; all the 
afflictions and sorrows that have been poured out upon mankind 
during the course of the world’s history, then come forth in their 
mightiest and most aggravated form. But, like evil generally, this 
form of evil is only the external echo of internal discord and 
convulsion in the moral world ; it is only on account of their hav- 
ing this moral source, and because of their possible salutary reac- 
tion, that these external circumstances are of any significance. The 
Rabbins very expressly designated the sufferings and disturbances 
that will precede the advent of the Lord: maz “tan, the birth- 
pangs of the Messiah ; and reference is made to the expression 
in the words ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων, beginning of pangs, Matth. xxiv. 8.7 
They viewed the universe as parturient and bringing forth a higher 
and nobler state of things under pangs and pains. The endeavour 
to point out cases of all the forms of human distress mentioned 
here, as existing in the time previous to the destruction of Jerusalem, 
is really inconsistent ; for even though analogies to all the specified 
phenomena of suffering are found, yet these are not the very things 
prophesied. At the coming of the Lord, all will be repeated in the 


* Comp. Henke’s Kirchengeschichte, Th. iv. 5, 359, ff. Von Meyer, in the Blatt. £ 
hok, Wahrh. Th. 7, 8. 306, ff, following Peter Beer's history of the Jewish sects, speaks 
of another man of this description, named Jacob Frank, According to the same author- 
ity, Peter Beer, there are still persons among the Chasidim in Russian Poland who exer- 
cise a power over their adherents, from which it may be inferred that they assume Mes 
sianic authority. Accounts are given of fifteen false Messiahs among the Jews since the 
time of Christ. 

{ Comp. Eisenmenger’s entd. Judenth. B. i. S. 711. 


232 Matruew XXIV. 9 


highest measure. The words of the Redeemer here evidently shew 
his aim to be to divert the minds of his disciples from the import- 
ance which man is so fond of attaching to these external commo- 
tions and troubles. Twice (ver. 6 and ver. 8) he assures them, that 
these troubles are not the end itself (concerning τέλος = yp, comp. 
the remarks above on ver. 1), but only the beginning of sorrows—ob- 
viously intimating that what are to follow will be still more severe. 

(Rumours of wars (ἀκοαὶ πολέμων), relate to wars that have not 
actually broken out, but the fearful rumours of which keep the 
mind in a state of alarm. It is better to understand ver. 7 as 
having reference to insurrections, than to take it as descriptive of 
wars which had just been spoken of. The dissolution of all polit- 
ical order is the main thought of the passage. θροεῖσθαι, instead of 
which Luke has πτοεῖσθαι, occurs in the parallel, 2 Thess. ii. 2. 
Πάντα, in Matth. xxiv. 6, is to be taken as standing for τὰ πάντα, or 
ταῦτα πάντας. The Old Testament affords parallels to the contents 
of these verses, in the passages 2 Chron. xy. 5,6; Isaiah xiii. 13 ; 
Joel iii. 3 ; Zech. xiv.3. The words added by Luke xxi. 11, φόβητρά 
τε καὶ σημεῖα ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ, fearful sights and signs from heaven, are 
introduced by Matthew in a subsequent part of the description 
[ver. 29], and more in harmony with the context. The ex- 
pression φόβητρον occurs in the New Testament only in this pas- 
sage.) 

Ver. 9.—The Saviour proceeds to specify some of these sharper 
sufferings and dangers to be endured by his disciples, and instances, 
as such, personal persecutions and martyrdom. He states that the 
ground of the hatred cherished against them is the name of Christ 
(here again ὄνομα, name, like 59 stands for the person, and the whole 
nature of the person himself), so that the Divine element in be- 
levers, comes into a like conflict with the ungodliness existing in 
the world, and its children, as was manifested in the person of Christ 
himself. As in Christ, so also in believers, that Divine element will 
conquer only by death. The observation appended by Luke (xxi. 
18), and peculiar to himself, καὶ θρὶξ ἐκ τῆς κεφαλῆς ὑμῶν οὐ μὴ 
ἀπόληται, and not a hair of your head shall perish, cannot have re- 
ference to external but to internal inviolability; for previous to this, 
ver. 16, we have the statement, καὶ θανατώσουσιν ἐξ ὑμῶν, some of you 
they shall pui to death.* (The same metaphor occurs, Luke xii. 


* If it be said that the words of Luke are only, ‘they shall put to death some of 
you” (θανατώσουσιν ἐξ ὑμῶν), so that the sense is: some would be killed, but the rest 
would remain unhurt; then an utterly unjustifiable distinction arises, and the dead ap- 
pear to suffer an injury—which cannot possibiy be the meaning of the passage. On the 
-ontrary, the words represent the hatred of the mass at large in its impotence. As an 
external force, it can reach only the external man; the true man remains untouched. In 
the parallel passages, 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; Acts xxvii. 34, it is said: θρὶξ ἐκ 
τῆς κιφαλῆς ob me aeit ai—a form which must be regarded as ideniica) with our own 


MatTrHEW XXIV. 10-13. 233 


6, ff.; and there also, it does not relate merely to the outward pre- 
servation of earthly life.) Now, if this hatred on account of the 
name of Christ is represented as altogether general, μισούμενοι ὑπὸ 
πάντων, hated by all (Matthew adds ἐθνῶν, nations)—then the idea 
expressed is, that mankind, without the spirit of Jesus Christ, live 
in the ungodly element of darkness, and by this very circumstance 
are prevented from recognizing in its true character the light of the 
Redeemer which has been received by believers. In regard to the 
fuller details given by Mark and Luke (with slight transpositions) 
respecting the form of the persecutions, and the position of believers 
in reference to the nearest earthly relations of kindred and friend- 
ship, we may observe, that it is probable they were originally spoken 
in the connexion of the discourse, but that Matthew put these 
thoughts in an abbreviated form, because he had already copiously 
introduced them in the passages Matth. x. 17, ff., 34, ff The history 
of the Church of Christ, as has been remarked in our exposition of 
those passages, affords numerous confirmations of this prophecy. 
But to what extent persecutions of believers to the death will be 
repeated when the advent of the Lord draws near, time must teach. 
The possibility of such things, at least, is proved by the persecu- 
tions of the faithful at the hands of their sanguinary oppressors 
during the time of the first French Revolution. 

Ver. 10-13.—-The sad consequences of these persecutions, to the 
Church, are now minutely described. To many they will prove a 
stumbling-block, and will lead them into great delinquencies. False 
teachers will arise, who will seduce many from the Church, and the 
ardour of brotherly love will be extinguished. The exhortation to 
ὑπομονή (or persevering endurance in all these sufferings), suggested 
by these thoughts, is expressed ver. 13; affliction is represented as 
that which purifies and perfects, so that it is equally a means of 
separating the impure, and of transforming into complete salvation 
the life of the upright.* 

That the teachers of error here spoken of (ver. 11) would be in 
the bosom of the Church, is not expressly stated ; and it may be 
Grotius, who renders the form thus: ne hilum quidem damni senties, also points out an- 
other interpretation of the words in the present connexion; he says: si quid ipsorum ad 
tempus interire videtur, non tam interit quam apud Deum deponitur, qui cum fcenore est 
redditurus. Accordingly he seems to understand the passage thus: “Ye will indeed be 
hated and killed, but nothing of you shall perish—ye will receive it all again at the re- 
surrection.” However, the idea of preservation and restoration can be applied only to 
what is spiritual; for Scripture says nothing about a revivification of all the parts of the 
destroyed body ; and hence we come back to the meaning: ye will suffer no true injury 


(not even the slightest); on the contrary, ye will receive advantage from all this, for, by 
patient endurance of sufferings (ver. 9), ye will gain your souls. 

* Luke xxi. 19 has, instead of σώζεσθαι, the parallel expression κτῶσθαι τὴν ψυχῆν, 
to gain or win the soul; antithesis to ἀπολέσαι. Comp. Matth. xvi. 25, where εὑρίσκειν 


and σώζειν occur synonymously, Comp. also on 7. 13, the passage Matth. x. 22, whero 
the same words are employed. 


234 Matthew XXIV. 14. 


supposed that teachers not belonging to the Church will succeed in 
drawing many feeble and half-hearted members out of it, for fear ot 
persecutions ; just as the growing iniquity (dvouia) without the 
Church acts banefully upon the love in the Church itself (ver. 12), 
But, as it is not expressly said that they will be without the Church, 
the words may be taken indefinitely as we find them, and applied 
to both cases; so that the general meaning is, that sin and 
corruption will gain greater power through the persecutions that 
should result from them, and will wound the Church itself 
in many of its members. (Ψύχεσθαι, to grow cold, occurs no- 
where else in the New Testament ; it is derived from the meta- 
phor which compares love to a fire, Luke xii. 49.) The probability 
that such phenomena as those described, ver. 10-12, were to precede 
the destruction of Jerusalem, cannot be shewn ; the persecutions 
of that period were not so violent as to drive many away from the 
faith and from the first glow of love. If anything of the kind did 
take place, it was only a feeble type of the decline of the Church 
predicted here, which Paul (2 Thess. 11. 3) designates as the ‘‘ fall- 
ing away” (ἀποστασία). And another proof that this prophecy also 
will find its fulfilment, in far more fearful phenomena than those 
which preceded the fall of Jerusalem, is furnished by the terrible 
fact of the first French Revolution—when the Christian religion 
was formally abolished, and compelled to give place to the idolatrous 
worship of reason. 

Ver. 14.—The proclamation of the Gospel in the world, and its 
vast extension to all the nations of the earth, forms, in the discourse 
of the Lord, the contrast to the apostacy of many from the Church 
in consequence of persecutions and seductions. In this exten- 
sion, the Divine energy inherent in the word is manifested as in- 
finitely more mighty than all the power by which the Church is 
assaulted from without. (The expression εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας, 
Gospel of the kingdom, in Matthew specifies the kingdom as the 
object of the glad tidings proclaimed by the preachers ; that mes- 
sage, however, is to be viewed as combining both the external and 
internal ; only, that here the connexion naturally leads to this, viz., 
that the proclamation would invite men to receive the spirit of the 
new living community, so that, at the Parousia, when it shall ap- 
pear in ascendancy, they may be received into it.) 

Now, this verse is particularly opposed to that view which refers 
the whole of this portion of the discourse (as far as ver. 29) to the 
destruction of Jerusalem alone. For the parallel πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, all 
nations, prohibits us from applying οἰκουμένη, world, either to the 
Jewish state or to the Roman empire ; nor can those who support 
the above hypothesis allow that there was a proclamation of the 
Gospel in all the world before the destruction of Jerusalem ; while 


MattrHew XXIV. 15. Zao 


the explanation that the announcement was not made to nations, as 
such, but to individuals belonging to them, who, it may be, came in 
contact with the apostles (so that the sense would be: “the procla- 
mation shall not then be confined to Jews, but addressed to mem- 
bers of all nations”), is evidently the mere resort of necessity 
According to our fundamental view, the preaching of the Gospel in 
all the world (as the prophets so often declared that the word of 
God should come to the remotest isles*) isa true sign of the near 
approach of the Lord’s advent, only that here—like the whole de- 
scription—it leans upon a great historical event which forms the 
natural type of the final catastrophe. Hence it is here said (witha 
retrospective reference to ver. 6), τότε ἥξει τὸ τέλος, then shall the end 
come, so that the end of the αἰὼν οὗτος, present age, is clearly con- 
nected with this sublime triumph of the Divine word over all ungod- 
liness. At the same time, the language before us does not imply that 
every member of every nation will be converted to the Church of Christ, 
as is shewn by the words ‘fora testimony to all nations” (εἰς μαρτύριον 
πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι). (The same phraseology occurred Mark xiii. 9; Luke 
xxi. 12, in reference to persecutions.) All that is required is that the 
Gospel, as the purest light of the manifestation of God, be shewn 
to all ; thus every one is placed under the necessity of deciding and 
taking part either for or agatnst it. Hence the proclamation of the 
kingdom of God is itself a deciding time (κρίσις) for the nations, 
whereby those who are of an ungodly mind are made manifest ; 
and this is the precise point expressed in the phrase “for a testi- 
mony to them.” In the representation of Luke (which here begins 
to differ widely from Matthew), this idea is wanting ; and, instead 
of it, he has introduced into this discourse the thoughts omitted by 
Matthew respecting the support that would be rendered to the 
preachers of .the Gospel by the Holy Spirit ; Mark also refers to the 
same subject, and connects it immediately with the proclamation of 
the Gospel. Matthew has the words (x. 19, 20), in his account of 
the instructions to the apostles ; and although they are by no means 
unsuitable in that connexion, yet it must be confessed that the last 
addresses of Christ, like the great concluding discourses reported 
by John, afford us reason for considering it very probable that the 
Lord then made reference to the assistance of the Holy Spirit. 
Accordingly, it appears that Mark and Luke have preserved, in 
these passages, true elements of the discourse of Christ, which Mat- 
thew omitted here because he had introduced them into previous 
discourses. 

Ver. 15.—Immediately after this description of the spread of 
the Gospel through all nations, there follows a very minute repre- 

* Comp. Isaiah xix. 21, ff, xlix. 6, li. 5, lv. 5, lvi. 7, bx. 3, 9, xvi. 19, 20; Zephan, 
ii, 11; Zechar. ii. 11. 


236 MatrHew XXIV. 15. 


sentation of the destruction of Jerusalem, without any pause being 
observed, or any intimation being given, that what follows is to be 
separated from what has preceded. Luke’s account especially, which 
contains much that is peculiar, makes the reference to the destruc- 
tion of the holy city unmistakable. This blending of the proximate 
and the most remote in one vision can be explained only by the 
principle we have laid down (ver. 1), as the ground on which our 
view of this section is founded : viz., that the destruction of Jeru- 
salem is employed as the nearest point with which the last things— 
necessarily remaining indefinite in their chronology—could be con- 
nected ; and that, according to the design of the Redeemer, this 
event itself was a type of the overthrow of the whole state of things 
obtaining in the present life, including the internal institution of 
the church. 

According to Matthew and Mark, the description of the Lord pre 
ceeds upon a prophecy of Danial. This express reference by the Re- 
deemer to the book of Daniel, will always furnish the believer with 
an important argument for the retention of Daniel’s writings in the 
canon, although he may not yet be able, on historical grounds, alto- 
gether to surmount the critical doubts respecting them, which, as 
it seems to me, still remain, even after the most recent and very 
valuable attempt to demonstrate the authenticity of Daniel’s pro- 
phecies.* It is impossible that Christ should have employed Daniel, 
as he did here, unless he approved of the importance ascribed to the 
book bearing bis name. (In the text of Mark, the form of citation 
τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου, is spurious, and merely interpolated 
from Matthew ; but it is evident that Mark has in his eye the same 
passage of Daniel as Matthew quotes.) The main passage here re- 
ferred to by the Lord is the remarkable prophecy, Dan. ix. 26, 27, 
which we find more definitely expressed, Dan. xi. 31; xii.11. Accord- 
ing to my conviction, this cannot relate to Antiochus Hpiphanes, 
but only to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, Although 
the calculation has its difficulties—and these not slight ones—(diffi- 
culties which designedly exist-in all dates connected with the pro- 
phecies of Scripture, because it is intended that the time should 
remain indefinite, and that nearer light concerning the future 
should be given to individuals only for special ends); yet the refer- 
ence of the prophecy to this fact is throughout so distinctly ex- 
pressed, that it never ought to be mistaken. But if this general 


* Tt appears to me that Daniel in the Old Testament, in a critical point of view, stands 
parallel with the second epistle of Peter in the New Testament. Neither of them can, 
on critical and historical grounds, be conclusively vindicated as the genuine writings 
of the authors to whom they are attributed. Meanwhile it is sufficient to shew that 
neither are the arguments against their authenticity conclusive, and that hence the 
question of authenticity, in regard to these writings, cannot be solved on_historico-criti- 
cal grounds. 


Mattuew XXIV. 15. 237 


reference of the prediction cannot be doubted, so neither can the 
expression βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, abomination of desolation 
(= bee oxsps; the expression is best taken as meaning the horror 
attendant on universal devastation and destruction ; the context 
would seem to point to some particular scene of ene conspicuous 
in the general desolation) be applied to the events in the time of 
Antiochus, but can only relate to what transpired when the city was 
demolished by the Romans. Now since Jesus applies the passage 
to this very fact, he here uses the prophetic words in their most 
literal sense. But what occurrence at the time of the fall of Jeru- 
salem is denoted by this obscure expression (it is chosen in con- 
formity with the LXX.; the version of Theodotion, which, as is well 
known, is generally used in the book of Daniel, has βδέλυγμα τῶν 
ἐρημώσεων) we are not definitely informed ; and it must necessarily 
remain a matter of uncertainty, because, according to the character 
of prophecy, the actual fact ultimately contemplated, as the imme- 
diate precursor-of Christ’s advent, only had its feeble types in the 
period of the destruction. 'T'wo objects, however, must be decidedly 
excluded ; the passage cannot have reference either to the band of 
zealots who caused a massacre in the temple, or to the Roman army. 
Neither of these has any religious character ; but such a character 
is indicated by the expression βδέλυγμα, abomination, in its connex- 
ion with τόπος ἅγιος, holy place; and the idea that the passage 
refers to the Roman army is merely occasioned by a mistaken com- 
parison of Luke xxi. 20, who should be treated independently, be- 
cause he gives another report of the discourse of Christ. The 
expression τόπος ἅγιος, holy place (for which Mark has ὅπου ov δεῖ, 
that is, ubi nefas est), cannot relate to the Holy Land ; it can be 
applied only to the temple, because in the original text the words 
are p22->2. And, moreover, the expression ἑστός, standing (with 
Fritzsche, I prefer the neuter because it refers to βδέλυγμα) is 
incompatible with either reference, to the zealots or the Ro- 
mans. The most consistent hypothesis is, that the profanation of 
the temple by idolatrous worship is the phenomenon alluded to ;* 
but as the historical accounts respecting the attempts made to 
introduce it, afford us but little satisfactory information, it is diffi- 
cult to fix upon anything specific. According to Josephus (Bell. 
Jud. ii. 7), Pilate attempted to set up the statue of the emperor, 
though not inthe temple. Jerome (in his commentary on the passage) 
says, that a statue of Adrian occupied the place of the demolished 
temple ; but this was after its destruction, whilst here the discourse 


* The expression βδέλυγμα is in the highest degree favourable to this view Suidas 
explains it thus: πᾶν εἴδωλον καὶ πᾶν ἐκτύπωμα ἀνθρώπου οὕτως ἐκαλεῖτο Tapa ᾿Ιουδαίοις, 
every image and every likeness of man was thus called among the Jews. In the Hebrew 
also, ypu is used especially of religious impurity, and p»ypy are plainly idols. (Comp. 
Gesenius sub verb ) 


238 MarrHew XXIV. 15. 


relates to occurrences before that catastrophe. Such events, there- 
fore, furnish only feeble analogies to that which is the proper subject 
of this prophecy. Paul (2 Thess, ii. 4) affirms this distinctly and 
beyond all mistake, and the possibility of such a fearful develop- 
ment of sin in times of external civilization and culture is again 
strikingly proved by the French Revolution, with its idolatrous wor- 
ship of reason. 

A further difficulty is occasioned by the parenthesis in Matthew 
and Mark, ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω, let him that readeth understand. 
That the Lord himself uttered these words with reference to the 
text of Daniel, does not appear to me probable ; in such a case 
something more definite would have been added, as, for example, 
“the words of the prophet” (τὰ tod προφήτου). But if these 
are the words of the Evangelist, appended by him to direct the 
attention of his contemporaries to this passage, then the question 
occurs, whether they will not afford a date for the composition of 
the Gospel. It is by no means improbable that if Matthew recog-- 
nized the near approach of the dreadful destruction of the metrop- 
olis, in the signs that preceded it, he might have felt it right to 
add such a hint for his readers; this hint, however, gives us no 
premises from which to deduce anything further than that the Gos- 
pel of Matthew.must have been composed shortly before the de- 
struction of Jerusalem ; the uncertainty as to the particular events 
to which Matthew may have referred in what he added, does not 
permit us to fix the time more precisely.* 

Here the account given by Luke is peculiar. As we have already 
remarked, the interpretation of the words quoted in Matthew and 
Mark, by a reference to Luke, as meaning the Roman army, is evi- 
dently forced ; Luke gives another version of the Lord’s discourse, 
Still it is not improbable that the particulars preserved by him are 
genuine constituent parts of the original discourse of the Redeemer. 
In Luke xix. 48, 44, we find the same idea—that of the city being 
invested by enemies, and the siege proceeding against it ; but that 
passage cannot be regarded as a post eventum description of what 
happened during the siege of Titus, because the Old Testament 
contains representations precisely similar. (Comp. Isaiah xxix. 3; 
Jerem, vi. 6; Ezek. xvii. 17.) Luke xix. 43, not only represents 
the city as beleaguered, but describes the mode of the blockade, by 
means of a mole thrown up. (Χάραξ signifies vallum or agger, an 
artificial elevation, by means of which besiegers endeavour to reach 
the walls of the blockaded city. Ezek. xvii. 17, the LXX. use the 
expression χαρακοβολία for this form of siege. The passage, Luke 

* Hug Kinl. in’s N. T. Th. ii. s. 14, goes too far when he thinks this passage gives 


ground for the inference that the Romans must already have occupied Galilee, and must 
have been on the point of taking Judea also, when Matthew wrote these words. 


MarrHew XXIV. 16-21. 239 


xix. 44, is the only instance in which éda@igw occurs in the New Tes- 
tament. It signifies literally [from ἔδαφος] to level with the 
ground, then generally to overthrow, to annihilate. In this wider 
signification, the expression is extended also to the children of 
Jerusalem [τὰ τέκνα σου ἐν σοΐ].) 

Ver. 16-21.—In the following verses the reference to the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem again presents itself unmistakeably in many par- 
ticular features. The judgment is described as breaking in so sud- 
denly and inevitably, that the utmost haste is recommended, and 
this very haste, as well as the entire surrender of all earthly posses- 
sions (comp. the same thought Luke xvii. 31) retains its significance 
in the typical application of this description to the advent of the 
Lord. The Lord will also preserve believers who yield themselves 
with child-like confidence to His guidance, in a safe hiding-place 
(comp. the remarks on ver. 31), against the universal devastation 
and destruction. (‘The mountains are mentioned as the places diffi- 
cult of access to troops making an assault, and it must be borne in 
mind that the houses were flat, so that the inhabitants could make 
an immediate descent from the roof to the open fields, and effect a 
more speedy flight. We have a perfect parallel to this description 
in Luke xvii. 31, which passage treats of the advent of the Lord 
under the figure of the destruction of Jerusalem.) The calamity 
itself appears inevitable, but prayer might effect alleviations ; as, 
for example, that the flight may not take place in the inclement 
season of the year. Matthew has the peculiar addition, μηδὲ σαββάτῳ, 
nor on the Sabbath. In interpreting this it must be observed that 
Jesus [regards the law of the Sabbath as Divine, and part of the 
moral law] yet without sanctioning the rigid notions which prevailed 
among the Jews concerning the Sabbatic law as correct. In conclu- 
sion it may be observed that even this special description of the fall 
of Jerusalem is not without allusion to the coming of the Lord, as 
is shown by ver. 21, where the (ϑλέψις μεγάλη) great affliction, such 
as had not happened since the creation of the world, can only, have 
reference to the man "ban; especially as it is added : οὐδ᾽ οὐ μὴ 
γένηται. 

Here again the representation of Luke so decidedly differs, 
that it requires a separate consideration, as a peculiar version. Je- 
rusalem was expressly named as the besieged city, ver. 20; and so 
also in the following verses of Luke the same application of the 
language is most decidedly retained—Jerusalem being described, 
ver. 24, as destroyed by Gentile nations, Even the mention of the 
great period of suffering is made in such a manner as not to convey 
so express a reference to the coming of Christ as that in Matthew 
and Mark. It is designated (ver. 23): ὀργὴ τῷ Aad τούτῳ, wrath 
upon this people, and accordingly this destruction appears to be 


240 MatrHew XXIV. 16-21. 


merely a judgment upon the Jews. But the supposition that 
the account of Luke relates merely to this fact, without making 
any reference to the advent of the Lord, is most decidedly op- 
posed by verse 24 in its immediate connexion with verse 25. In 
the former the time of the Gentiles is represented as being 
fulfilled, and in the latter the signs of the Parousia are de- 
scribed as altogether unmistakeable; so that we cannot admit 
any essential difference between the statements of Matthew and 
Mark compared with those of Luke. The points of difference have 
more to do with single features in the representation than with the 
matter itself—(Ver. 21, the words ἐν μέσῳ αὐ τῆς, in the midst of 
at, refer to Jerusalem. The city is brought into contrast with its 
environs [χώραις]. Those believers who were in the city were to 
flee out of it [and thus it came to pass, for the Christians fled be- 
yond the Jordan to Pella], while those who were already out of it ᾿ 
were not to seek safety in it, because the city, with everything in it, 
was to become a prey to destruction. ’Exyweéw occurs nowhere else 
in the New Testament. Verse 22 expressly designates the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem as a Divine act of judgment [concerning ἐκδίκησις, 
comp. the remarks on Luke xvii. 8, 7] already predicted in the 
Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.)—The form πάντα τὰ yeypap- 
μένα, all things written, cannot have reference only to the passage 
Matt. xxiv. 15, quoted from the prophet Daniel ; on the contrary, it 
comprehends the entire sum of those prophecies and types in the 
Old Testament, which set forth the wrath of God against the nation 
of Israel. Hence we must begin with the curse pronounced by © 
Moses upon the people if they would not obey the voice of God 
(Deut. xxviii. 15, ff.), and connect with it the threatenings of all 
holy men and prophets, in which they denounced punishments upon 
unbelief and disobedience. And even if these had their preliminary 
fulfilment in many oppressions endured by the nation—as may be 
said, for example, of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnez- 
zar, and the captivity of Israel in Babylon—yet all previous suffer- 
ings appear insignificant when compared with the ruin of the city 
by the Romans, All prior judgments, therefore, are types of this 
last and proper act of Divine justice, which followed the rejection of 
the Messiah, the highest and also the final act in the manifestation 
of the grace of the Lord. (Comp. Matt. xxi. 38, ff., where the Lord, 
in His parable, connects the judgment with the expulsion of the 
Son.) This is especially true of the Babylonish exile, to which there 
appears to be an allusion in the words of Luke, ver. 24. αἰχμαλωτισ- 
θήσονται εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, they shall be led captive among all nations. 
The carrying away of Israél from the land of his fathers to Babylon 
was only a prelude to the general captivity of the Israelites (pre- 
dicted by Moses, Deut. xxviii. 64) among all nations, from one end 


MarrHew XXIV. 16-21, 241 


of the earth to the other. Thus the whole world was opened to 
them, excepting only the holy city—the centre of all their hopes 
and desires—this (since the time of Adrian) was closed against 
them. It was accessible to none but Gentiles, who made the holy 
place a place of idolatrous worship and licentiousness. (Πατέω, like 
καταπατέω, is also used by the profane writers in the sense of con- 
temptuously treading under the feet, abusing. Hence it involves 
the idea of audacity and sinfulness as the only source from which 
abuse can spring. ‘There is but one other instance of its occurrence, 
in the same signification, in the New Testament, viz. Rev. xi. 2, τὴν 
πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν πατήσουσι ἔθνη, the Gentiles shall trample on the holy 
city ; and this language appears to refer to our passage, thus afford- 
ing no small confirmation to the view that the words before us, while 
peculiar to Luke, really belong to the discourse of the Lord.) 

The final clause of ver. 24, “ until the times of the Gentiles be 
fulfilled” (ἄχρι πληρωθῶσι καιροὶ 2Ovdv), is of the highest significance. 
The main idea it expresses is, that nations, like individuals, have a 
limited time of development, beyond which they cannot pass. As 
Israel filled up the measure of his disobedience and then was re- 
jected, so also the rule of the Gentiles over Israel has its term. 
True, these words contain no express information respecting the 
relation of Israel to the Gentiles, at the termination of their power 
over it ; but this may be gathered from other passages. According 
to Rom, xi. the rejection of Israel is not total, and therefore the ful- 
filment of the “‘ times of the Gentiles” is to be viewed as connected 
with the restoration of the Jews. And, on the other hand, this ful- 
filment in relation to the Gentiles, is to be regarded as a judgment 
poured out upon them for the purpose of punishing and sifting 
them.* (The prophets of the Old Testament speak in a similar 
manner respecting the nations whom the Lord used as scourges to 
his own people ; for a time they kept the ascendancy, and then they 
themselves were hurled down. See Isaiah x. 5, 12,15; Zech. i. 14, 
15; Dan. ix. 26, compared with xii, 11.) The meaning of the 
words certainly has its primary application to the Romans, as the 
nation by whom the Lord God permitted the Jews to be chastised. 
But as the destruction of Jerusalem (according to the principle 
already laid down in our remarks on Matt. xxiv. 1) was employed 
only as the nearest great historical event to represent the description 
of the last time, so also the several circumstances in the history of 

* The time of the conversion of the Gentiles is not the period referred to. The Lord 
does not here speak of the Gentiles in so far as they also are objects of Divine favour, but 
so far as they are used as instruments in the Divine government of the world. (Comp. 
Schott in his Comm. p. 338. The passages, Jer. xxvii. 7, 1.31, which Schott quotes, are 
illustrations in point.) Verse 25 throws decisive light on the meaning of Luke in these 


words, for after the description of the sufferings of the Jews, mention is made of the 
συνοχὴ ἐθνῶν, distress of nations. 


Vou. II1.—16 


242 MarrHew XXIV. 22. 


the former people have their further relation to this, A more mi- 
nute view of this subject will be furnished in the intepretation of 
the passage, Rev. xi, 2, which is quite parallel with Luke xxi, 24, 
and contains a reference to Dan, xii. 11. 

Ver. 22—Whilst Luke immediately follows up the description 
of the fall of Jerusalem with the mention of prodigies which would 
be visible in heaven and on earth, Matthew (ver. 22-28) introduces 
between these points a more amplified description of the distress 
which he had mentioned, ver. 21; and Mark inserts a similar par- 
agraph in the same place, only in a form somewhat more abbre- 
viated. The peculiarity of the ideas is a guarantee for the correct- 
ness of their position here, with this exception only—that Luke 
employs ver. 27, 28 in a more appropriate connexion than that which 
they have in Matthew. Matthew xxiv, 22, describes the great afflic- 
tion as so fearful that in the mercy of God a special curtailment 
would be necessary, for without this none (οὐ πᾶσα == 5 xb) of the 
feeble race of men (odes — “va certainly signifies mankind generally, 
but with the accessory idea of weak, perishable elements contained 
in the mass) would survive the woe. (There can be no doubt that 
here ‘‘saved” (σώζεσθαι) primarily refers to the outward, corporeal 
life, so that the sense is: ‘‘all would be destroyed.” But since the 
subject of discourse is a visitation of Divine justice, the corporeal 
destruction involves moral guilt ; the impossibility that the elect 
should perish, in this judgment of God, is parallel with the impossi- 
bility of their being seduced [ver. 24].—KoAoBdw, from κόλοβος, lite- 
rally signifies to mutilate, then to cut off, to shorten. This is the only 
instance of its occurrence in the New Testament. Now this abbrevia- 
tion of the distress comes to pass for the sake of the elect (διὰ τοὺς 
ἐκλεκτούς). The question might be asked, whether the design of the 
language is to represent the elect as exercising this influence merely 
by their presence, or whether the effect results from their prayer. 
But wherever the elect are, they are only to be conceived of as in 
prayer, so that the two sensés coincide. Thus we find the same 
idea here as in the Old Testament (Gen. xviii.), that the saints ex- 
ercise a preserving influence upon the whole mass. And the truth 
of this idea is easily seen if, instead of the ordinary view of human 
relations, which isolates the individual man, we adopt a more pro- 
found one, according to which alike the haman race as a whole, and 
single nations in their collective capacity, appear founded upon a 
vital, mutual influence of the individuals that constitute them. 
For this view shows the forbearance of God with the ungodly for 
the sake of the godly, as not resulting from arbitrary Divine decree : 
it springs from the natural connexion of the spiritual life cf the 
mass, that those individuals in whom the germs of the nobler 
life are preserved, sustain the whole; if they also become the 


Matruew XXIV. 23-26. 2438 


prey of corruption, the whole must sink. In the fall of Jerusalem 
this principle was but very imperfectly realized. True, the siege 
might have lasted longer, and the ruin might have been such 
that not a single person should have escaped ; but how it can be 
said that this was prevented for the sake of the elect, does not ap- 
pear. For the Christians fled to Pella, and this flight was a proof 
that Jerusalem, with its inhabitants, was given over to destruction 
as incorrigible (like the world before the flood after Noah’s removal 
into the ark, and like the dwellers in Sodom after the flight of Lot 
to Zoar) ; not that God shortened their tribulation on account of 
the believers. Schott, indeed, thinks (p. 57) that we are not to 
understand by the elect the Christians, but such Jews as were about 
to go over to the Church of Christ. But the reference of the elect, 
ver. 24 and 31, to the members of the church, renders this hypoth- 
esis quite untenable. This passage also evidently has its final refer- 
ence to the advent of the Lord, preceded by the birth-pangs of the 
Messiah ; these will fall at once upon believers and unbelievers— 
upon the former to perfect, upon the latter to punish them ; but for 
the sake of believers the merciful One will shorten them. It is not 
till after this (ver. 31) that believers are separated from their con- 
nexion with unbelievers, and gathered together in a mountainous 
place (Zoar) ; then the community of unbelievers, having lost its 
moral foundation, is plunged into irretrievable destruction. 

Ver. 23--26.—The physical sufferings are accompanied further 
by sharp temptations ; deceiving and deceived men represent them- 
selves as the Messiah and as prophets (comp. the remarks on Matth. 
xxiv. 4, 5). The temptation by pretended appearances of Divine 
messengers appears continuous in its operation upon the church, 
and, at the same time, advances in itself. According to this pas- 
sage, it is so severe that even the elect might be deceived, if it 
did not involve an internal contradiction to suppose that the repre- 
sentatives of the kingdom of light on earth would be overcome by 
darkness. The reference of the ‘ elect” in this passage to any others 
than the apostles and believing members of the church, is utterly 
untenable, for the whole is addressed directly to the apostles them- 
selves. Hence the words can only be taken as meaning “‘ so as to 
lead astray, if possible, you and all the elect” (ὥστε πλανῆσαι εἰ δυνα- 
τὸν, ὑμᾶς Kat πάντας τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς) ; it is only thus that the 
force of the admonition can be felt. A remarkable point in this 
passage is, that signs and wonders are ascribed to false prophets. 
These being signs by which genuine prophets proved their author- 
ity, inexperienced persons might easily be deceived by them. Now, 
the admission that miracles might be performed by false prophets, 
is an incontestable witness (as we have already remarked in the ex- 
position of Matth. iv. 12) that miracles cannot prove the truth, 


244 MatrHew XXIV. 27, 28. 


The truth can only be proved by itself, as the presence of light is at- 
tested only by lightitself. But the gift of miracles certainly shews 
the connexion of an individual with the spiritual world, whether 
with the world of light and truth, or with the kingdom of darkness 
and lies. ‘The question whether an individual is acting in the spirit 
of light or of darkness, cannot long remain a matter of doubt to an 
upright person ; and, if miraculous powers are united with falsehood, 
this is to an enlightened mind so much stronger an intimation to 
keep aloof. The meaning which the Lord here intends to convey is 
enlarged upon by Paul (2 Thess. ii. 9) and John (Rev, xiii. 12, ff.); 
but without the presupposition of a kingdom of darkness and its 
agency, we can have no possible conception of miracles of pseudo- 
prophets.* 

Ver. 27, 28.—A contrast is drawn between the forms in which 
false Christs appear (ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, in the desert—év τοῖς ταμείοις, in the 
secret chambers) are to be taken merely as general expressions for 
the antithesis between inhabited and uninhabited, concealed and 
opent), and the mode in which the only true Messiah is manifested. 
The latter is like an all-illuminating flash of lightning, which no 
one can mistake ; as easily as the former admits deception, the lat- 
ter unmistakeably reveals itself. Granting that the figure of the 
lightning turns partly on the unexpected and startling suddenness 
of its appearance, yet the connexion absolutely requires that the 
main reference should be to its discernibleness and openness to uni- 
versal observation. This is contrasted, as the test of the appearing 
of the true Messiah, with the pretended Messianic advents of im- 
postors, who are always obliged to mask themselves, in one mode or 
another. Now, in what way this can relate to the so-called invis- 
ible advent of the Lord at the destruction of Jerusalem, does not 
at all appear ; the words have no sense except when applied to the 
coming of the Lord in the clouds of heaven.{ In the text of Luke 
(xvii. 24) this figure of the lightning is worded somewhat differently: 
ὥσπερ ἡ ἀστραπὴ, ἡ ἀστράπτουσα ἐκ τῆς ὑπ᾽ οὐρανὸν εἰς τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανὸν 


* The expression δώσουσι σημεῖα, shall give signs, forbids the supposition that the 
mere pretence of being able to work miracles is meant: it ascribes to false prophets the 
real power to perform them. Paul speaks expressly, 2 Thess. ii. 9, of the ἐνέργεια τοῦ 
σατανᾶ, working of Satan, which effects them. 

+ This representation of the ministry of false prophets is strikingly descriptive of the 
spirit that inspires them. Instead of the open, transparent spirit of the true Gospel, they 
manifest a spirit of sedition which shuns the light, and is constantly under the necessity 
of hiding this or that from its all-revealing rays. 

¢ Schott is impartial enough to acknowledge the impossibility of applying ver. 27, 28 
to the invisible advent of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem; but he is inclined (since 
these verses are wanting in Mark and otherwise associated by Luke) to remove them al- 
together from Matthew, so that ver. 26 shall form the conclusion of the prophecy con- 
cerning the destruction of Jerusalem, and ver. 29 the commencement of the propliecy re- 
specting the advent of Christ. (Comp. loc. cit. p. 72.) 


Matthew XXIV. 27, 28. 245 


λάμπει ; whilst Matthew mentions the cardinal points of the earth : 
ἡ ἀστραπὴ ἐξέρχεται ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ φαίνεται ἕως δυσμῶν. (With ἐκ 
τῆς and εἰς τὴν the word χώρα must be supplied ; so that, even ac- 
cording to Luke, the language denotes those regions of the heavens 
through which the lightning flashes.) 

It is probable, as we have already remarked, that this passage 
and ver, 28 do not constitute original parts of the discourse of the 
Lord. In Luke xvii. 24, 37, the two verses stand in a more exact 
connexion ; and besides this, we have seen that in the whole narra- 
tive of Luke, to which this passage also belongs, a closer train of 
thought is to be observed, which appears to rest upon accurate his- 
torical accounts ; whilst Matthew, throughout his gospel, treats the 
elements of the discourses more freely. But ver, 28, ὅπου yap ἐὰν ἡ 
τὸ πτῶμα, ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί, especially does not seem to 
stand in connexion with what precedes it, according to Matthew ; 
whilst in Luke* the previous question (ποῦ κύριε) renders the pro- 
verbial sentence exceedingly appropriate to the description about to 
be given of the destruction of unbelievers. Now, as in Matthew, 
the unmistakeable coming of Christ, was described in the verses im- 
mediately preceding, the connexion might seem to recommend the 
untenable interpretation, which makes the πτῶμα mean Christ him- 
self, and the ἀετοί believers collected around him.f But apart from 
the unsuitableness of the figure, we find no parallel case of such a 
relation between the πτῶμα and the ἀετοί, On the contrary the uss 
loquendi of the Old Testament (comp. Hab. i. 8; Jenem. xlviii. 40, 
xlix, 22; Job xxxix. 30) indicates the natural idea of the humilia- 
tion and destruction of that which is given oyer to ruin. The only 
question is, how this idea coincides with the connexion. According 
to the context in Luke xvii. 37, the only way of understanding the 
passage is to take σῶμα, body, as meaning the Jewish state, de- 
prived of all life, and the ἀετοί, eagles as the Romans completely 
putting an end to its existence (it is not improbable that allusion is 
made to the eagles of the legions) ; but both the former and the lat- 
ter point, as types, to the last great catastrophes. In Matthew, 
however, this signification of the proverb is directly contrary to the 
connexion ; hence we must either say that the passage is here inap- 
propriately inserted, or admit that Matthew and Luke use the same 
apothegm in different senses. To the former view I must declare 
myself most decidedly opposed ; because it would entirely rob the 
Evangelist of his character as an author of scripture ; and it is always 
observable in his gospel, that where he does not preserve the original 
order he institutes a new one. Accordingly, I adopt the other 


* In the text of Luke, however, σῶμα, is to be preferred to the reading πτῶμα which 
has been copied from Matthew. 

+ So Fritzsche (in loc.) who translates the words; ubi Messias, ibi homines, qui ejus 
potestatis futuri sint. 


246 MatrHew XXIV. 29 


hypothesis, But there are two modes in which the connexion with 
what precedes may be formed. Hither eagles must be referred back 
(with Fleck, loc, cit. 384) to the ψευδόχριστοι, false Christs (ver. 24), 
so that the meaning is, ‘‘ where corruption has become general, there 
men are immediately found who know how to employ it for their 
own ends ;” or else the γάρ, for, must be allowed to decide for the 
immediate connexion of ver. 28 with ver. 27, and the “ eagles” must 
be interpreted as descriptive of the Messiah coming to inflict pun- 
ishment upon the corrupt Israel. The latter view is grammatically 
preferable, on account of the for, which it is more difficult to con- 
nect with ver. 26 ; for this reason Fritzche adopts it, only, as we 
have remarked, applying πτῶμα to the Redeemer—an application 
which appears to me inadmissible. But one thing only can be ad- 
duced against this view, viz., that the plural (ἀετοί) does not pro- 
perly apply to the appearing of Christ. But if his appearing be 
conceived as connected with that of angels (as required by Matthew 
xxv. 31), this difficulty is solved. The nobler expression ἀετός --- 
svi, Isaiah xl. 31, is in other passages also used metaphorically in 
the good sense.* The figure strictly required, not eagles, but vul- 
tures, because the eagle only devours living animals ; but the names 
of kindred animals are not unfrequently interchanged. (Comp. 
Gesenius in his lex. sub verb, 7%.) 

Ver. 29.—The correctness of our interpretation of the Lord’s pro- 
phecy respecting his advent, as developed at. the beginning of this 
chapter, is not more evident in any passage than in the difficult verse 
which now follows. Whatever other explanation is offered, the diffi- 
culties are not solved. For if all that is now added be referred, like 
what has preceded, to the destruction of Jerusalem, without allowing 
the description of the Lord’s advent to be blended with this ; then, 
in the first place, it does not appear how the Orie, affliction (by 
which, according to the connexion, we can understand only the 
events described, ver. 21, and not the temptation by false pro- 
ver. 24) can be represented as past (comp. peta τὴν θλίψιν τῶν 
ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων), since the destruction itself (by some understood 
as the invisible coming of Christ) is the affliction. And in the 
second place, the description of the miraculous signs (ver. 29), and 
the details of the Parousia itself (ver. 30, 81) are by no means suited 
to the fact of the destruction of Jerusalem. But if a pause in the 
representation of Jesus be supposed (as Schott suggests), and the 
foregoing part be applied to the fall of Jerusalem, while the sequel 
is taken as belonging to the coming of Christ at the end of the 
world, then, although the words μετὰ τὴν θλίψιν, after the affliction, 
gain their right signification, εὐθέως, immediately, is inexplicable, 

* Comp. the remarkable passage Rey. viii. 13, where the term ἀετός is applied to an 
angel, The text. rec. also reads ἄγγελος in the passage. 


Matruew XXIV. 29. 241 


and ver. 33, 84, refer every thing (πάντα ταῦτα) again to the imme- 
diate presence of the apostles. The interpretation which Schott (p. 
99) attempts to give of εὐθέως, when he compares it with the He- 
brew ons, and takes it in the sense of “ suddenly,” ‘‘ unexpectedly,” 
is only to be regarded as a shift ; for this scholar himself sees there- 
in a false rendering by the unknown translator of our Greek Mat- 
thew from the Hebrew original. If there appeared no other choice, 
I would rather adopt the fine conjecture of Weber (conjecture ad 
Mt. 24. Viteb. 1810), that εὐθέως belongs to the preceding verse, 
and ver. 29 opens with the words : μετὰ δὲ τὴν θλίψιν κ. τ. A. 5 buts 
the exact agreement of the manuscripts speaks too strongly for the 
integrity of the text* to render a conjecture admissible in this pas- 
sage. But according to the fundamental view of prophecy which 
we have laid down, this verse coincides with the connexion very 
naturally. The representation of the Redeemer certainly marks a 
progression in the several events of the future concerning which he 
speaks, so that the following great signs, taking place in the hea- 
vens, stand in contrast with the commotions on earth previously 
described, and the distress of all nations (according to Luke) with 
that of the Jewish pe@ple ; thus it was proper to speak of these sub- 
sequent events as following the afflictions of those days (μετὰ τὴν 
θλίψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων). Nevertheless this entire circle of suc- 
cessive events is transferred to the immediately coming present (ac- 
cording to the principles already laid down) ; and therefore εὐθέως, 
immediately (which Mark explains by the words ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέ- 
ραις, in those days), was used, quite consistently, in its literal sense. 
(Haggai, ii. 6, similarly ascribes the great movements of heaven and 
earth to the immediate present ; he employs the expression xm v3", 
that is, after a short time, εὐθέως.) The unity of the whole picture 
(in which no divisions whatever can be distinguished) is most strik- 
inely obvious in Luke, who, with a καὶ ἔσται, and there shall be, xxi. 
25, links the following description to the preceding one, which re- 
fors most definitely to "ἢ erusalem. 

According to the scope of the whole—and the succeeding verses 
(30, 31) do not leave a doubt on this subject—the signs (ys in 
the sun, moon, and stars, cannot be interpreted alleporically, as re- 
presenting political or ecclesiastical relations and their dissolution ; 
for political disturbances have already been spoken of, ver. 7. And 
just as little is the sense exhausted, if the language is understood 
as referring to ordinary and frequently recurring phenomena, which 
were only at times regarded as prodigies, for example, eclipses of 


* Throughout the whole verse, there is not the slightest difference in the MSS., which 
is seldom the case in passages of any importance. 

+ A reference of εὐθέως to the Divine chronometry (according to 2 Peter iii. 8), is not 
here admissible, because the representation is evidently adapted to human conceptions. 
(Comp. the question, Matth. xxiv. 3.) 


248 MatrHew XXIV. 29. 


the sun and moon, or falling stars. It would be preferable to 
explain the signs in the sun and moon, of their obscuration during 
earthquakes, by evaporations and volumes of smoke ; this is a very 
extraordinary and terrific phenomenon, and would well correspond 
with the raging of the sea (Luke xxi. 25), which often accompanies 
earthquakes, ‘But the parallel passages of the Old Testament 
point too definitely to another view to allow of our retaining this. 
The Old Testament—which is followed by the New in the idea 
alluded to—never isolates our globe, as a separate sphere, from the 
heavenly world and its orbs, as the modern philosophy usually does; 
on the contrary, heaven and earth make up one perfect whole. 
Hence mighty phenomena on earth influence alike previously and 
subsequently the heavenly world. (Thus with the star that led the 
Magi at the birth of Christ) On this principle the prophets pre- 
dict not merely violent con.motions on the earth, but with them 
similar events in heaven ; and these are by no means viewed as in- 
cidentally coinciding, but as necessarily connected. The Creator of 
heaven and earth, in the exercise of his sovereign rule, makes the 
upper and the lower worlds simultaneously tremble from their foun- 
dations. Among the passages in which such celestial phenomena are 
predicted, Isaiah xiii. 10, xxiv. 28, xxxiv. 4; Ezek. xxxu. 7, 8 ; 
Joel ii, 30,31; Hagg.ii. 7, are specially to be noticed. In the last of 
these, God promises that at the time when he sends the Messiah (whose 
first and second advents are viewed as coincident, according to the 
usual mode of representation) he will shake heaven and earth, the 
sea and the dry land. Our passage is in perfect correspondence 
with this language ; Matthew and Mark detail the commotion in 
the heavenly world, Luke gives greater prominence to the disturb- 
ance on earth. Hence the obscurations of the sun and the moon 
are most correctly interpreted of extraordinary phenomena in the 
celestial regions themselves ;* and so also with the expression : 
“the stars shall fall from heaven” (ἀστέρες πεσοῦνται ἀπὸ τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ). There is here no reference to stars falling to the earth, as 
is said of a star, Rev. viii. 10, in symbolical language : Πίπτειν, fall, 
may therefore be taken (as Schott, p. 78, very justly remarks) 
for ἐκπίπτειν, perish, disappear.t Not that absolute destruction is 
meant ; but simply that violent shakings and fearful commotions 
of the heavenly bodies will, for a time, withdraw them from the 
eye of man, and veil everything in awful night. This idea is well 
supported by the expression σαλεύεσθαι (from σάλος, salum, the roll- 

* The term φέγγος is used among the’ Attics, by way of distinction, for moonlight, 


φάος for daylight. But the distinction is not constantly observed. (Comp. Passow in 
the lex. sub verb.) 

+ Compare the parallels in the Old Testament, Isaiah xiv. 12 (where the king of 
Babylon is described as a falling morning star, qpy% Ὁ τ 5 bbon), and xxxiy. 4, where the 
LXX. have the phrase πάντα τὰ ἄστρα πεσεῖται, 


Marruew XXIV. 30. 249 


ing sea [found in the New Testament only in this passage and in 
Luke], hence to be moved up and down, to be tossed), Probably 
the word contains an allusion to the parallel in Haggai (e279 
pyo¥n-nx), although the LXX. have rendered it by σείω. The only 
remaining expression in which there is any difficulty 1s δυνάμεις τῶν 
οὐρανῶν, powers of heaven. Since the stars have already been men- 
tioned, this cannot, without tautology, be understood as meaning 
the heavenly host, the p89 sas. The best interpretation makes 
δυνάμεις signify the angelic world. (Comp. the remarks on Rev. ix, 
1.) For in part σαλεύεσθαι, shaken, may be applied to spiritual 
commotior. (2 Thess, ii. 2), and partly we are to conceive alike of 
the angels and their dwelling-place—the entire upper sphere—as 
appearing to be moved. Hence we need not understand the lan- 
guage metaphorically. But as to the remark of Schott, that δυνάμεις, 
powers, in the sense of higher powers, angels, does not occur in 
connexion with οὐρανῶν, of the heavens, Bretschneider (in his lex. 
Pt. i. p. 262) shows that in the Apocrypha mention is made of 
οὐρανίων δυναμέων, heavenly powers (comp. also 2 Kings xvii. 16, ac- 
cording to the LX.X.); and there appears to be no reason whatever 
why that connexion should be inadmissible, especially as it is in the 
highest degree probable that the designation of stars as God’s host 
is founded in the idea of the ancients, that the stars were animated 
and inspired by spirits. 

While then Matthew and Mark describe the celestial phenomena 
which will usher in the Parousia, Luke points also minutely to the 
violent earthly commotions that will precede it. These are desig- 
nated, in contrast with the earlier sufferings of the Jews in Pales- 
tine (Luke xxi. 21), as about to come upon the whole earth (γῆ, 
οἰκουμένη), and upon all nations (ἔθνη). (Matth. xxiv. 30, we find 
instead of those forms, the expression: πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς.) 
The words of Luke, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς συνοχὴ ἐθνῶν ἐν ἀπορίᾳ ἤχους 
θαλάσσης καὶ σάλου, contain an important various reading, which 
Schulz has even received into the text. The Codices A.B.L.M. and 
several others read ἠχούσης, but the substantive may still be prefer- 
able as the more difficult reading. (’Aropia ἤχους signifies “* per- 
plexity on account of the roaring of the sea.” The meaning is 
that the dreadful commotion of the elements will render men 
altogether helpless and bereft of their senses, not knowing what 
next awaits them [προσδοκία τῶν ἐπερχομένων]. Συνοχή occurs in only 
one other instance, 2 Cor, 11. 4, connected with καρδίας, The figure is 
derived from the sensible influence of distress as revealed in a 
(συνοχή, holding together) compression, straitening. 

Ver. 30,-—All three Evangelists agree in connecting the Parousia 
of the Son of Man immediately with these signs by a τότε, then 
But Matthew alone remarks, with reference to the question of the 


250 MaitHew XXIV. 30. 


disciples (Matth. xxiv. 3), that immediately before the return of 
the Lord, another special sign of the Son of Man (σημεῖον τοῦ υἱοῦ 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) will appear in heayen. It is impossible to determine 
this with precision, as it is spoken of only in this passage. Most 
probably a star is meant (in allusion to Numb. xxiv. 17); so that 
just as before the birth of Jesus a star was seen which heralded his 
coming—like the morning star that precedes the sun at its rising— 
a similar sign will appear before his second advent. Thus much is 
certain (on account of the article,) that a definite sign is to be under- 
stood, so that the expression cannot relate (as Schott thinks) to the 
signs described, ver. 29; and, in like manner, it cannot be intended 
to designate an earthly event or an invisible occurrence in the church, 
since the words ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, in heaven, which cannot be joined to 
υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, are expressly connected with it. But all conjec- 
tures for which there is absolutely no scriptural warrant (for exam- 
ple, that a cross will be seen in the heavens) are best left in their 
own uncertainty. The sight of this decisive sign will awaken terror 
in the (unbelieving) nations of the earth (comp. the remarks on 
κόπτεσθαι, Matth. xi. 17 ; Luke viii. 52), and they will then behold 
the solemn Parousia of the Son of Man. It is beyond all doubt, 
that the following description neither relates to an invisible advent 
of Christ, nor can be understood in any metaphorical sense what- 
ever. For although ἔρχεσθαι and ἥκειν (come), alone might be so 
understood (comp. the observations on Matth, xxiv. 1), no passage 
can be adduced in which the complete phrase, ἔρχεται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου ἐν νεφέλαις μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης, the Son of Man cometh 
in the clouds of heaven with power and glory, can with any proba- 
bility be thus understood. (Comp. Matth, xxvi. 64 ; Mark xiv. 62; 
1 Thess. iv. 16, 17 ; 2 Pet. mi. 10; Rev. xix! 11; Dan. ὙΠ 1} 
Let any one, with an unprejudiced mind, place himself within the 
sphere of ideas familiar to the hearers of Jesus, and he will enter- 
tain no doubt that the clouds, in which he promises to appear, are 
literally clouds of light. (In Rev, xix. 11 we find, instead of this 
expression, the metaphor of a white horse, denoting swiftness of 
motion and brightness.) These are to form, as it were, the basis on 
which the Redeemer, descending from Heaven, will rest, while 
brightness (δόξα = 1423) encircles the whole of the sublime phe- 
nomenon. According to constant custom, deeply founded in the 
nature of man, all appearances of God are surrounded with light, 
in the Old Testament as well as in the New ; there is no imagina- 
tion whatever, individual or national, that can conceive of the Deity 
under any other image than that of light. Δύναμις, power, however, 
is not to be taken merely as a synonym of δόξα; in this instance it 
unquestionably has the signification of host (= βυθϑπ 83x, which 
the LXX. in the passage, 2 Kings xvu, 16, translate δύναμις τοῦ 


MartHew XXIV. 31. 251 


οὐρανοῦ), since it belongs to the pomp of the Parousia, that the 
Lord does not come alone, but with the host of his holy ones 
(Matth. xvi. 27, xxv. 81; Jude, ver. 14; Rev. xix. 14). It is fur- 
ther observed, that, in like manner, according to a constant usus 
loquendi, the Redeemer represents himself in his coming as the Son 
of Man, not as the Son of God. Here there might be an appeal, on 
the one hand, to the general use which the Saviour makes of this 
name, when he speaks of himself ; and on the other to passages such 
as Dan. vii, 13, 14, which the Lord may have had in view. Yet there 
is still a peculiar significance in the fact, that this name—which 
denotes the ideal humanity of the Lord—is constantly employed in 
the description of his advent ; for by this means, we have the most 
distinct assurance of the reality and corporeality of his appearance. 
The return of the Son of Man necessarily presupposes his ascension 
in a glorified body, and his sitting, in this glorified body, at the right 
hand of God. 

Luke makes the transition to the next thought in a very appro- 
priate manner, xxi. 28. After the impression of the return of the 
Lord upon the tribes of the earth (φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς) has been described, 
there follows a representation of its effect upon believers. To the 
former it is the essence of everything terrific, because of its imme- 
diate connexion with the judgment ; to the latter, it is the essence 
of everything desired, because it is the commencement of their 
promised bliss in the kingdom of God (ver. 31). That kingdom, in 
relation to the sufferings of the present, takes the form of redemp- 
tion (ἀπολύτρωσις) to the saints. The same term, indeed, applies 
(like σώζεσθαι, Matth. xxiv, 22), in the primary sense, to release from 
the external troubles of the αἰὼν οὗτος ; but so far as these are the 
results of sin, deliverance from the former involves freedom from the 
latter. (Concerning the expression ἀπολύτρωσις, comp. the remarks 
on Matth. xx. 28.—There is also mention made of an ἀπωλύτρωσις 
Tov σώματος, redemption of the body, Rom. viii, 23 [the connexion 
points to the corporeal giorification, as the deliverance from ματαιότης, 
vanity, decay, ver. 20], but this also presupposes a spiritual re- 
demption.) Believers may joyfully anticipate this attainment of 
the final goal at the time of the Parousia, ("Apyeodar, begin, is 
here by no means redundant ; on the contrary, the events described 
are viewed in their gradual development, and treated as affording 
encouragement and consolation to the members of Christ’s king- 
dom.—’Avakvrrey was employed, Luke xiii. 11, to denote the phy- 
sical act of looking up ; here it is a metaphorical expression for a 
hopeful, confident state of mind.) 

Ver. 31.—Luke contents himself with indicating the relation of 
the Parousia to the saints ; but Matthew and Mark dwell more de- 
finitely on the Divine agency by which they will be delivered from 


252 MatTrHew XXIV. 31. 


all danger and trouble. Whilst the appearing of the Lord is 
fraught with destruction to unbelievers, the elect will be removed, 
by a sublime arrangement, from all peril, and collected together in 
one (safe) place. That this passage does not relate merely to Pales- 
tine, and the believers in that land, is shewn by the expressions : 
ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, from the four winds, (mihi »2>8, 1 Chron. 
ix. 24; Ezek. xxxvii.9; Rev. vii. 1), and ἀπ᾽ ἄκρων οὐρανῶν ἕως 
ἄκρων αὐτῶν, from one end of heaven to the other,* both of which 
phrases metaphorically denote the widest extent of the earth. Just 
as little can the language refer to the diffusion of the Gospel (as an 
invisible gathering of the nations), for it is not the heathen, but 
those already converted, who will be gathered together. (The gen- 
eral proclamation of the Gospel has already been spoken of, ver. 14.) 
Nor can this passage be applied even to the general union of all the 
saints in the kingdom of God, which would presuppose the resur- 
rection. (On that subject, comp. 1 Thess. iv. 17; 2 Thess. ii. 1, 
where the ἐπισυναγωγή, gathering, of believers with the Lord, after 
the resurrection, is the subject of discourse.) For in conformity 
with the question of the disciples (ver. 3), the whole representation 
of the Lord refers only to the ¢ime and the signs of his coming. 
Hence the picture embraces all that precedes that event, up to his 
appearing in the clouds (ver. 30); but the advent itself, and the oc- 
currences connected with it—the resurrection of the dead, the cloth- 
ing of the living with immortality, and their removal to the 
presence of the Lord (2 Cor. v. 4; 1 Thess. iv. 17)—are left 
untouched. In the whole description, the Redeemer specially has 
in view the moral design to excite holy earnestness and vigilance, as 
well as to afford encouragement in the conflict of this life. 
According to passages of the Old Testament (comp. Isaiah xi. 
12, ff; xxvi. 20, xxvii. 13; Ezek. xxxvi. 24; Zechar. x. 8, ff.), it 
would seem that before the resurréction of the just, all the dispersed 
Israelites will be gathered together. (Comp. Hisenmenger’s Entd. 
Judenth. Pt. ii. p. 894, 95.) We may suppose that the design of 
this gathering is, first, to separate them from the mass of unbe- 
levers, so that they may be removed from the punishments that 
will fall upon that classt (Luke xxi. 36, ἵνα καταξιωθῆτε ἐκφυγεῖν 
ταῦτα πάντα); and, secondly, to unite them more closely together, 
so that the manifestation of the Lord may not be beheld by a few 


* Equal to Ὀο Ayp—I21 OvswA mepre, Deut. iv. 32, xiii. 7; xxviii. 64. In a 
similar manner, John (Rev. vii. 1) speaks of the τέσσαρας γωνίας τῆς γῆς. 

+ The book of the Revelation (xix. 11-21) describes this judicial punishment of tha 
wicked at the Parousia. The gathering of believers is not mentioned, but according to . 
Rey. xviii. 4, it is presupposed, for in chap. xx. they appear preserved and ruling with 
the Lord. The community of believers is the bride (xix. 7) to whom the heavenly 
Bridegroom comes, The gathering together of the wicked (Rev. xvi. 14, 15) forms the 
antithesis to that of the saints. 


MatrHew XXIV. 32, 33. 253 


individuals only, but the privilege may be shared in common by the 
great body of his believing people. In relation to the first object, 
this separation and gathering of believers has its type in the gather- 
ing together of Noah’s descendants in the ark, of Lot’s family in 
Zoar, and of the Christians of Jerusalem in Pella, (Comp. the re- 
marks on Rev. iii. 10.) It is only in this view that the following 
exhortations to fidelity and watchfulness gain their true significance; 
for this implies the possibility of escaping the dreadful events at 
the Parousia, and being removed to the place of safety. As regards 
the angels sent forth with the loud sounding trumpet, by whom the 
collection is accomplished, it has already been remarked at Matth. 
xiii. 51, that the expression ἄγγελος is often applied to human mes- 
sengers and instruments of the Lord. Now the words μετὰ σάλπιγγος, 
with a trumpet, seem to render it improbable that we are here to 
understand ἀγγέλους as meaning men (comp. Schott, p. 119); for 
this mode of speech is never employed in reference to the preaching 
of the Gospel. But if it be considered that the σάλπιγξ would 
seem to denote less the communicating of a doctrine than the power 
of the Spirit by which persons are awakened and brought together 
for a definite object, then it does not appear why this eftective energy 
may not as well be ascribed to human individuals who are endowed 
with the Spirit [?]. In the Revelation also (chap, viii.) the seven 
angels with trumpets may be regarded as meaning individuals who 
exert upon the church a specially powerful, awakening energy [Ὁ]. 
(Comp. Matth. xxv. 31, concerning the angels who accompany Jesus 
on his return.) 

Ver. 32, 33.—Here Christ concludes the communication of actual 
events connected with the Parousia. In a parable (respecting παρα- 
βολή, see the remarks on Matth. xiii. 3) probably suggested by a fig- 
tree in the neighbourhood—he compares the course of natural devel- 
opment with that of the seed of God’s kingdom. The vernal swell- 
ing of the branches (ἁπαλός, literally “tender,” “soft ;” this is the 
only instance of its occurrence) is placed along side of the commu- 
nications respecting the near approach of the kingdom. (Hence 
the words πάντα ταῦτα, all these things, are not to be applied merely 
to the concluding statements of the Lord, but embrace αἰΐ that He 
said in reply to the question of the disciples.) Here, the connexion 
shews that we must conceive of the kingdom of God (according to 
Luke xxi. 31) as that state of things, commencing with the second 
coming of the Lord, when good will be also outwardly predominant. 
(Comp. the remarks on Matth. iii. 2.) The element which wrought 
after the first advent of the Lord, in humility in the hidden realm of 
the Spirit, and could produce but comparatively feeble outward 
effects—because sin still retained its ascendancy in the whole visible 
world—will, at the second coming of Christ, reign triumphantly 


254 MarTrHew XXIV. 34, 35. 


over nature and mankind. And there is yet another idea compre- 
hended under the one name, “ kingdom of God” (βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ) 
which, although not developed here, is brought out very distinctly 
at a subsequent period (in the book of the Revelation)—viz., the 
kingdom of the saints upon the renovated earth (Rev. xx.), and the 
new heaven and the new earth (Rev. xxi.). The text of Luke some- 
what differs in this parable; but the difference is not essential. 
(The same parallel is extended to πάντα τὰ δένδρα [ver. 29], and 
instead of ἐκφύειν τὰ φύλλα, the expression προβάλλειν is used = Adv. 
[Comp. Gesenius sub verb.] The words ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν γινώσκειν, to 
know of ourselves, indicate that independence which can dispense 
with the guidance of another: ‘accordingly ye can judge from your 
own observation concerning the approach of the kingdom of God.’’) 

Ver. 34, 85.—The use of the second person in the address, in the 
preceding verses, to the disciples, plainly shewed that the fulfilment 
of the Lord’s predictions was conceived as transferred to the pres- 
ent ; but a still more distinct impression than has yet been given is 
furnished by the declaration that everything previously spoken of 
(πάντα tava) will come to pass in the lifetime of this generation 
(γενεά = 57), The statements of this passage cannot be applied 
either to the church (as the spiritual posterity of Christ), or to the 
people of Israel (as enduring to the end) ; both of these interpreta- 
tions are inadmissible, partly upon philological grounds, and partly 
on account of the parallels, Matt. xvi. 28, xxii. 36 ; in the first of 
which γενεά, generation, is circumscribed by τινὲς τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων, 
some of those who stand here, and μὴ παρέρχεσθαι, not passing by, by 
μὴ γεύσωσθαι θανάτου, not tasting death.* Teved is not used in the 
sense of nation in any one passage, either of the New Testament or 
of profane writers. If it relate to a particular people, for example 
to Israel, then it signifies the members of that people living at a 
particular time. There is only one instance in the version of the 
LXX. (Levit. xx. 18) where the γενεά stands for oy. (Comp. 
Schleusner lex, in LXX. vol. ii. p. 11.) But if this application of 
the term to the generation then living be retained here, then, ac- 
cording to the ordinary interpretation of the passage, it must not 
be united with the foregoing reference to the return of the Lord.t 
Hence Schott (p. 131) most arbitrarily conjectures that here the 


* See, however, my opposing explanation of this at Matt. xvi. 28. “Some of those 
standing here” refers there, I feel assured, to those Apostles who, on the Mount of Trans- 
figuration, would behold, before death, a glory typical of that which awaited the Saviour 
in his kingdom.—[K. 

+ “ Allthese things” (ταῦτα πάντα, v. 33), are those general fortokenings (compared with 
the gradual swelling of the branches) of the day of the Lord, mymsp43 (which for Israel 
commenced in the year 70, A.D., for the Gentiles will begin with the ‘times of the 
Gentiles” —Kaipoic ἐθνῶν). “ All these things,” v. 34, are precisely the same signs, since 
the words in v. 34 point clearly back to the same words in y. 33. The then existing 
generation was to live to sce all these signs.—[E. 


MarrHew XXIV. 36. 255 


discourse suddenly returns to the destruction of Jerusalem. Such a 
change, when there-is nothing to support it, cannot be supposed in 
any discourse. The instances adduced by Schott (p. 133) are from 
the same chapter, and labour under the same arbitrariness ; and as 
to the observation that here the second person is used, whereas ver. 
30, where something far later is spoken of, the third is employed 
(ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου épyouevov)—this proves nothing ; for 
the third person refers to unbelievers, and the second to believers. 
The only way of explaining these difficulties is that which we have 
already stated—viz., to view the prophecy with reference to the im- 
mediate present, but in such a manner that everything includes a 
further reference to the future. 

Jesus (ver. 35) founds the truth of these predictions upon the 
nature of His words generally. They, being imperishable, form the 
antithesis to that which is perishable ; whatever is capable of per- 
ishing, even in the highest and grandest object (heaven and earth = 
the universe), will perish ; the word of Christ cannot pass away. 
Here the word of Christ and the word of God are viewed as perfectly 
identical, for the same language was used, Matth. v. 18, in respect 
to the Old Testament as the word of God. And the sentence οἱ δὲ 
λόγοι μον οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσι, 15 by no means to be understood as merely 
meaning that the previous predictions would certainly be fulfilled, 
and that therefore the word of Christ is true ; for then it might be 
said that all the statements concerning the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, having been fulfilled, have already passed away and perished. 
On the contrary, the language in question traces the certainty of 
the fulfilment of the prophecies to the eternal nature of the Word 
of God, spoken by Christ who is the Word of the Father ; it follows 
from the nature of this word that it is never exhausted, and even 
its fulfillment does not do away with it or change it, but by means 
of the power that dwells in it, it continually renews its youth, and 
retains its freshness and force in all circumstances and in all ages. 
(John vi. 63.) 

Ver. 86.—The foregoing general statement, that the present gen- 
eration would not pass away till the prophecy was fulfilled (ver, 34), 
is now more definitely explained by the fact that there is no exact 
assignment of dates (ἡμέρα καὶ dpa) ; this is absolutely refused as 
impossible. Hence there is no reason to suppose a contradiction 
between ver, 34 and ver. 36, assuming which, Schott (p. 131) refers 
ver, 34 to the destruction of Jerusalem, but ver, 36 to the second 
advent. On the contrary the mode of expression here adopted is 
the only one that can be conceived of as suited to the circumstances 
of the case. For had the Redeemer intended to say that his coming 
was yet very distant, such a statement would have entirely destroyed 
the ethical import of the prophecy, viz. the incitement to watchful- 


256 MattHew XXIV. 86. 


ness which it was designed to produce ; and if, on the other hand, 
he had so expressed himself as to say nothing at all about the time 
when these things would come to pass, this total silence would have 
been no less paralysing in its influence. But the representation 
given by the Lord was so formed as to act in a two-fold way ; first, 
to keep before the mind the constant possibility of his coming ; 
and, secondly, to shew the impossibility of fixing upon a precise 
period ; the former object was accomplished by ver. 34, the latter 
by ver. 36. 

It may indeed be said that ver. 34 does not express the possibil- 
ity, but the certainty, of the Lord’s returning in the time of the 
generation then alive. But this very decided form of promise 
(beginning with the phrase: ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν) is explained by the 
relative truth which the coming of Christ has in reference to that 
generation in particular, and also to all generations of the world. 
(Comp. the remarks on Matth. xxiv.1.) The advent is by no means 
to be looked upon as an occurrence happening at a particular time 
in the remote future, for in that case it would only concern the 
people living at the precise period when it comes to pass, and would 
be of no consequence to previous generations ; on the contrary, it 
is to be viewed as something extending throughout the history of 
the world, and spiritually near to every one, without excluding the 
fact that the prophecy respecting it will also be externally fulfilled 
in its whole meaning, at the end of the αἰὼν οὗτος, present age. 

Special notice is due to the peculiar addition of Mark: nor the 
Son (οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός). The harmony of the manuscripts and versions is 
a sufficient guarantee for its genuineness, but its interpretation is 
not free from difficulty. The first question is, what ought to be 
supplied after “the Son” (ὁ vidc¢)—of man, or of God? The for- 
mer supplement seems to be supported by its juxtaposition with 
οὐδείς, no one, and ἄγγελοι τῶν οὐρανῶν, angels of heaven, for these 
expressions place the creature in contrast with the Uncreated ; to 
the former, ignorance is ascribed, to the latter, knowledge ; hence if 
the Son is represented as participating in the former, it seems more 
appropriate that this should be said of him as Son of Man than 
as Son of God. But, on the other hand, father, as the correlate 
to son, strongly calls for τοῦ Θεοῦ, of God, to be understood, for if 
“son” did not occur, there can be no doubt that “ God” would be 
chosen as the antithesis to “ angels” and “no one.” ‘True, it may 
be said, that in the text of Matthew we find πατήρ, but not υἱός. 
But the different readings shew that the expression was not deemed 
quite suitable in this connexion; some have received οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός 
from Mark ; others have appended μοῦ, which Matthew ordinarily 
associates with the application of πατήρ to God in the discourses of 
Jesus. Now, although these readings are not genuine in the text 


Marruew XXIV. 386. ‘257 


of Matthew, yet they render it very probable that the reading πατήρ 
is only founded in the circumstance that οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός originally pre- 
ceded in the discourse, but Matthew, for unknown reasons, omitted 
it. If, however, the Son of God is here referred to, the ignorance 
of the day and hour predicated of him cannot be absolute, because 
the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son does not permit a 
specific separation between the knowledge of the Father and the 
Son ; rather, it must be understood as designating the κένωσις of 
the Lord in his position of humiliation.* Hence we must not rea- 
son from these words in Mark to the parallel passage in Acts 1. 7, 
in which the Lord, after his resurrection, declares that it is not 
within the range of human faculties (οὐχ ὑ μ ὦ ν ἐστι) to know the 
precise period of the Parousia, and infer that even at that time the 
Lord did not know it. (Comp. the exposition of Acts 1. 7.) 

All three Evangelists finish this prophetic picture with an ex- 
hortation to watchfulness ; but in the further illustrations which 
immediately follow the verse before us, they differ so much, that 
their representations must be regarded as independent statements, 
Mark, indeed, does not say anything different from Matthew, but 
merely reports the exhortation to watchfulness in an abbreviated 


* Without assuming perfectly to explain the difficulty here involved, we may, I think, 
assume thus much, that (even apart from doctrinal considerations) the exegetical difficul- 
ties against supposing an ignorance on the part of the Saviour of the day and the hour ot 
his coming are insuperable. The being who knew all that he has so minutely foretold 
of the signs, the attendant circumstances, the manner and the consequences of his com- 
ing, could not be ignorant of the simple fact of the time, which assuredly involved no 
deeper knowledge. He who could thus prophesy all rownd the period, could not but 
know the period itself Certainly not if his knowledge was underived ; but will it be ar- 
gued that his knowledge was derived, and therefore limited? True, God could 
reveal to a man the knowledge of every thing but the date, and withhold that. But 
to such a withholding the general spirit of the present prophecy runs entirely 
counter. Had it not been for this declaration, we should have pronounced, unhesitating-. 
ly, that he who knew all the rest here foretold, must have known this. But again, did 
the Saviour hold his knowledge by any such tenure? John says that he “ himself knew 
what was in man,” and this seems to presuppose a personal and absolute omnisciencé.. 
He sometimes represents himself as following the Father in working miracles, and yet 
we find in him abundant proofs of an indwelling and perpetual divinity. As his Father 
wrought so he wrought, although in his official position he was subordinate to the Father 
in those displays of omnipotence. But that he had the omnipotence is clear, and 
certainly if he was omnipotent he was omniscient. Any one unlimited attribute implies 
ull unlimited attributes. If his knowledge was limited, so must have been his power. 

We are driven, then, by the mere facts of the case, to find another than literal expla- 
nation of the words. And is it not furnished in the strong hyperbolical language so 
frequently and freely employed by the Saviour? Is it not the strongest possible state- 
ment that the t7me of that great event was to be kept a profound secret? It was un- 
known to man, it was unknown to angels; it had never been lodged even with the Son 
himself—the Great Revealer of Divine truth—for the purpose of being communicated to 
man. Whatever difficulties press upon this interpretation, they are surely less, even in 
an exegetical view, than those which involve an absolute ignorance in the Son of a single 
point around every side of which he is shedding the blaze of a Divine illumination.—[K. 


Vout. IL—17 


258 Marraew XXIV. 36. 


form, in a parable which Matthew, in the last verse of the chapter, 
gives more at large. Luke, on the contrary (ver. 34-36), has givena 
perfectly independent account. He first warns against worldliness 
of life (μραιπάλη literally means a ‘heaviness of the head from previous 
intoxication,” or “‘ the effect of excessive eating”) ; then adds an ad- 
monition respecting the suddenness of the day of judgment, and its 
destructive character to all who live in security (he employs here the 
expression παγίς, ‘snare, noose,” which is often used [1 Tim. 11. 7 ; 
vi. 9, and in the Old Testament, Prov. vii ; 23 xi. 14, xxu. 5] for 
danger, ruin.—The verb κάθημαι here denotes the easy, comfortable 
life of men indulging in worldly security) ; and, lastly, he concludes 
with an exhortation to watchfulness and prayer. As the objects of 
prayer he specifies καταξιωθῆναι ἐκφυγεῖν, being counted worthy to 
escape, and σταθῆναι ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀνθρώπου, to stand before the 
Son of man. ᾿Ἐκφυγεῖν, as already observed, relates to the idea un- 
folded, Matth. xxiv. 31, that the saints, after having been proved, 
will be withdrawn from all the calamities which impend at the sec- 
ond coming itself. But σταθῆναι, stand, which has its antithesis in 
πίπτειν, fall (Rom. xiv. 4) denotes recognition and acceptance in the 
judgment. If for this escape and standing a worthiness is required, 
this, according to the fundamental principle of the Gospel, is to be 
sought, not ina number of deeds, but in faith. This faith, how- 
ever, is to be viewed as a living principle, which, springing from the 
life of the Lord, enables its possessor to stand before him and his 
judgment. Luke xxi. 37, 38, furnish historical notices of the Re- 
deemer’s life during his last days in Jerusalem (how he taught in 
the Temple by day, spent the night out of the city, and again in 
the morning was expected by the people); but these have no further 
reference to the prophetic announcements. (Respecting αὐλίζεσθαι ---- 
#>, comp. Matth. xxi. 17.—This is the only instance in the New Tes- 
tament where we find ὀρθρίζω — υξϑπ.] 

Now Luke, xvii. 26, ff., agrees in the main with Matthew’s 
mode of presenting (xxiv. 37, ff.) the conclusion of the discourse 
concerning the Lord’s return. And the exact connexion of the 
passage in Luke leaves no doubt as to the fact, that it stands 
there in its original connexion, Matthew having only removed it in 
accordance with his custom, and not at all unsuitably, to another 
position. But, on the one hand, he abbreviates the discourse which 
Luke gives at large, even in such parts as would have been quite 
appropriate to the connexion (for instance, he omits the example 
of Lot and his wife, although it so strikingly illustrates the reward 
of faith and the punishment of unbelief [Luke xvii. 28, 30, 827) ; 
and on the other, he omits what was not adapted to his design, 
although it belonged to the connexion of Luke (comp. Luke xvii 
83, 37.) 


Marruew XXIV. 37-42. * 259 


Ver. 37-39.—In the first place, Matthew draws a parallel be- 
tween the times of the Parousia, and a kindred period in the his- 
tory of the old world—the deluge (Luke xvii. 26, 27). Luke adds 
a second parallel taken from the destruction of Sodom. In both 
cases only a few followed the warning voice of God, and assembled 
in a safe mountain-retreat ; the great mass did not repent or un- 
dergo any true change of mind, but persisted in the old life of es- 
trangement from God. One thing is remarkable throughout the 
whole of this representation, that the contemporaries of Noah and 
Lot are not, by any means, described as wicked and vicious, but 
merely as sensual men. (᾿Εσθίειν, πίνειν x, τ. A.. and according to 
Luke ἀγοράζειν, πωλεῖν κ. τ. 2. denote only the ordinary business of 
the outward life.) That the wicked are lost is easily understood, 
but the man who, without any glaring evil deeds, wastes his life 
upon external things, fancies himself in this freedom from positive 
crime, secure from the judgment of God ; he little thinks that his 
whole existence and being is sinful, because it is worldly and alien- 
ated from God. (James iv. 4.) The discourse of the Lord is di- 
rected against this carnal security, and not against vice, which is 
condemned by the law. 

Ver. 40, 41.—Upon this world, full of secure sinners, the Pa- 
rousia, and with it the κρίσις, will break in without mercy. Good 
and evil, which coexisted and were mingled together, will now be 
separated ; the closest and most intimate relations, things linked in 
apparent union, will now be made known, as in their inmost nature 
entirely different. Matthew gives the examples of companionship 
in the labours of the field or in grinding at the mill ; Luke (xvii. 
34) adduces the intimate relationship of married persons, who rest 
on the same bed, and yet come under the influence of different ele- 
ments. (In the text of Luke, ver. 86 is wanting in most, and those 
the best codices, viz., in A.B.H.G.H.K.L.Q.8. Probably it has been 
received from Matthew into Luke.—Instead of the futures παραληφ- 
θήσεται, ἀφεθήσεται in Luke, Matthew has the present tenses, παραλαμ- 
βάνεται, ἀφίεται. The latter render the description more vivid and 
graphic. These are the only passages in the New Testament where 
the antithesis between παραλαμβάνειν and ἀφιέναι occurs. The sim- 
plest mode of explaining this use of the two words is to take παρα-- 
λαμβάνειν, according to Luke xvii. 35, in the signification “ to re- 
ceive and accept as worthy,” ‘‘to admit into one’s society,” so that 
it is identical with ἐκλέγειν ; and ἀφιέναι, on the contrary should be 
understood as denoting the negative act of non-acceptance.) 

Ver. 42.—An exhortation to watchfulness is now given as a con- 
cluding admonitory thought, drawn from this illustration, and 
grounded also upon a further reflection—the uncertainty of the 
period (ὥρα), when the Lord will come. Here again, of course, the 


260 Marruew XXIV. 43-51. 


conviction that he will come in the lifetime of the generation to 
whom he speaks, is to be presupposed (as in Matth. xxiv. 34); for 
what force would there be in an exhortation to vigilance, that had 
respect to a period of time far beyond the individual life of the per- 
sons addressed ? 

Ver. 43-51.—These thoughts are succeeded in Matthew by two 
other parables, which Luke also has xii. 36-40 ; and in this instance 
again we must acknowledge that the connexion of Luke is the 
original one. For it is altogether improbable that the Lord would 
have frequently repeated these parables in such a peculiar connex- 
ion. Here, asin Luke, the parable of the householder (οἰκοδεσπότης) 
and the servants (δοῦλοι) are blended together with this difference 
only, that Matthew gives the precedence to that of the house- 
holder, Luke to the other. On the import of such a comming- 
ling we have already said what was necessary in our remarks 
on Luke ; we here simply consider the relation of the similitudes 
to the whole representation of the Parousia, It is easily seen that the 
last of the two (which Luke also has xii. 42-46, although in another 
connexion)—respecting the faithful and wise servant (δοῦλος πιστὸς 
καὶ φρόνιμος, ver. 45) and the wicked servant (δοῦλος xaxd¢)—relates 
to watchfulness. (Mark xiii. 34, in his expansion of the parallel, 
draws a distinction between the managing servants to whom the 
Lord commits the authority [Matth. xxiv. 45 and Luke xu. 42 view 
them as superior stewards, to whom the servants (θεραπεία ---- θερά- 
novtec—the abstract for the concrete—) are subordinated] and the 
θυρωρός, porter, to whom he gives special prominence as the watcher ; 
comp. Matth. xxv. 6.) The faithful and wise servant watches, and 
while he considers the period of the Lord’s advent uncertain, deems it 
equally possible that it may come in his own time. The bad serv- 
ant (who is also the μωρός, foolish, Matth. xxv. 2) negatively fixes 
the time of the Lord’s coming, by declariag that it is yet distant. 
(Concerning ypovigw comp. Luke i. 21, xii. 45.) In this putting off 
really consists the unfaithfulness of the servant ; and the “‘ beating” 
etc., is to be regarded as its consequence. In ver. 51, this is desig- 
nated as ὑπόκρισις, hypocrisy, because the delay and the relation of 
the servant to the Lord are mutually contradictory. The true servant 
desires the return of the beloved Master ; the wicked one, who in 
reality belongs to another (the world), wishes it to be deferred, be- 
cause he dreads it. Where there is the glow of ardent Jove to God, 
there is a constant expectation of the coming of the Lord ; although 
in the course of the Christian conflict, the delay is often too long 
even for the sincere heart (comp. the remarks on Matth. xxv. 7). 
We have already observed on Luke xii. 46, that Matthew appears 
to have preserved the true reading in ὑποκριτῶν, hypocrites ; Luke 
has the more general term ἀπίστων, faithless, which is not so well 


MattHew XXIV. 43-51. 261 


adapted to the connexion in Luke, where hypocrisy (ὑπόκρισις) is 
the very subject of discourse. 

The second parable—that of the householder—involves greater 
difficulty ; it seems unsuited to the connexion. Ignorance of the 
time when the thief would come, here appears to be the circumstance 
that prevents the master of the house from watching ; now the 
whole description is designed as an exhortation to watchfulness, 
and therefore it might be argued analogically that the watching 
here enjoined would be facilitated if the time were known. But the 
more specific reference of the householder and thief has already been 
developed in the exposition of Luke xii. 39 ; in this parable the in- 
tention is to represent the other aspect of the Parousia, its relation 
to the unbelieving world, while that of the servants describes its re- 
lation to believers. In so far, however, as the disciples by no means 
appear as yet entirely free from the worldly principle and its influ- 
ence, this aspect of the Parousia has an application to them also. 
For whilst the parable of the servants gives a direct admonition as 
to watchfulness, the same thing is indirectly urged by that of the 
householder. The day of the Lord’s coming must be unknown to 
believers, that their desire may be kept constantly awake, to unbe- 
lievers that judgment may suddenly surprise them in their careless- 
ness ; but this carnal security, while it forms a temptation even to 
believers, on the other hand serves to exite their watchfulness by 
the contrast which it presents. Thus, as the whole Christ is set for 
the fall and rising of many, so also is his Parousia. (Instead of the 
more general terms ποίᾳ φυλακῇ, or Gea [Matth. xxiv, 42, 44], Mark 
xiii. 35, has the expressions: ὀψὲ, ἢ μεσονυκτίου, ἢ ἀλεκτοροφωνίας, ἢ 
πρωΐ, at evening, or at midnight, or at cock-crowing, or in the morn- 
ing. This distribution of the night into four vigils is the more 
popular form. Comp. the remarks on Matth. xiv. 25,—Acyoropety 
literally signifies “ to divide into two pieces ;” but here, on account 
of the following words, which are not compatible with the idea of 
death, the meaning is, “to punish severely, to hew, to lash.”— 
Μέρος τιθέναι = peh jn. Comp. Rev. xxi. 8.—Concerning κλαυθμός 
and βρυγμὸς ὀδόντων comp. the observations on Matth. viii. 12. It 
does not appear that the words can be understood here as denoting 
eternal perdition ; they merely designate exclusion from the king- 
dom of God which begins with the advent of the Lord, and the 
torment which results from the consciousness of having deserved it; 
for the further discussion of the subject comp. the exposition of 
Matth. xxv. 12, 30.) 

The following three parables are found only in Matthew ; Luke 
has one analogous (Luke xix. 11, ff.) to the second in another con- 
nexion, It is unquestionable that they were all spoken in the last 
period of the Lord’s ministry, since they have such distinct refer- 


262 MattHew XXIV. 43-51. 


ence to the second advent ; but whether they immediately followed 
the conversation on the Mount of Olives (chap. xxiv.), cannot be 
affirmed with certainty. However, the three parables stand in such 
close connexion both with one another, and with what precedes, as 
to render it very probable that they were at least not delivered long 
after the discourse respecting the second coming (chap. xxiv). For 
the two first—that of the virgins and that of the servants—contain 
admonitions to be watchful and faithful in expectation of the speedy 
return of the Lord ; and thus stand in close connexion with the dis- 
course immediately preceding. Both parables represent the bless- 
ing attending true devotedness to the Lord, and the curse resulting 
from a divided heart. But in order to understand these two para- 
bles, it is in the highest degree important to mark their relation to 
the third. Whilst the two first are, so to speak, co-ordinate, the 
third appears to be destined for quite another point of view. This 
is shewn, first, by the form of transition (ver. 31, ὅταν dé, but when), 
which introduces something new and different ; whilst the second 
parable is connected with the first by a ὥσπερ γάρ, for just as, and 
the first with chap. xxiv. by a τότε, then. Then, secondly, the ex- 
pressions virgin, servant, plainly indicate a special relationship to 
the Redeemer ; hence, in the first and second parables, the refer- 
ence is not to men without distinction, but to children of the king- 
dom, concerning whose vigilance and fidelity, judgment is passed. 
In the third, on the contrary, all nations appear before the judg- 
ment-seat of Christ, with the exception of true believers (πάντα τὰ 
ἔθνη, ver. 82), And, finally, in the last parable, the good, in com- 
mon with the bad, are represented as perfectly unconscious of their 
relation to the Lord (ver. 37, 44) ; whilst, according to the two pre- 
vious ones, both parties appear to act with a consciousness of this 
relation. These important points of difference forbid the supposi- 
tion that all three representations relate to one and the same fact ; 
but they are explained in a similar manner, if—in accordance with 
the Jewish views (comp. Bertholdt Christ. jud. p. 176. seq.), which 
the New Testament confirms—we distinguish the-general judgment 
of all nations and individuals (associated with the general resurrec- 
tion), from the kingdom of God and the resurrection of the just. 
The establishment of the kingdom of God is connected with a sift- 
ing of those who belonged to the earthly church (comp. Rev. xx. 4, 
about the preliminary judgment) ; all who stand that trial are 
members of the kingdom, and participants in the marriage of the 
Lamb, but those who cannot endure it, although they certainly are 
excluded from the kingdom of God, are not as yet eternally con- 
demned. The final decision respecting them also takes place at the 
general judgment of the world (Rev, xx. 12). It is true that these 
two periods are not distinctly separated in the whole of Matthew’s 


MattrHew XXV. 1-13. 263 


representation ; on the contrary, they prophetically coincide ; the 
only place in the New Testament where we find the order of suc- 
cession plainly marked is in the book of the Revelation ; but the in- 
timations here given are sufficient to render it clear that the 25th 
chap. of Matthew is founded upon the same view of the future. 

The ordinary interpretation of this chapter—according to which 
the same thing substantially is conveyed by all three representations, 
viz. that the good will be rewarded and the wicked will be punished, 

‘and that hence the subject of discourse is merely the final account 
which all must render—has some truth in it, inasmuch as all the 
positions of men have a similarity to one another, and therefore the 
various figures may be used for all relations. But this general ap- 
plicability of the parables must not lead us to overlook the immedi- 
ate and special-references that present themselves in each separately. 
(Comp. the further particulars in the remarks on Matth. xxv. 14, 
31.) 

Ver. 1-18.—The external form of the parable of the ten virgins 
is to be explained from the customs of the Israelites. The bride- 
groom, accompanied by his friends (υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος, or φίλοι τ. v., 
John iii. 29) brought the bride from the house of her father. The 
bride was surrounded by her companions, who went to meet the 
bridegroom as he approached, and then accompanied her with 
torches to the house of the bridegroom, where the marriage-supper 
was prepared.* According to the usual figure, the Lord now re- 
presents himself as the Bridegroom who comes to the earthly church, 
as the bride, that he may conduct her to his dwelling. As the 
angels accompany the Bridegroom (ver. 31), so the virgins, who 
await the delayed arrival of the Bridegroom, are distinguished from 
the bride. Thus the sense of the parable as a whole is easily made 
out ; the only question is, how far its single features are to be re- 
tained. The only fixed rule by which we can be guided in the mat- 
ter is the appropriateness of the reference, and this rule, when ap- 
plied without any straining, presents so many interesting points of 
relation in this parable, that it must be considered one of the finest 
in the Gospel. For the more numerous the points of comparison 
which a parable affords, without any unnatural or forced interpre- 
tation, the greater its perfection. 


* Comp. Jahn’s Hebrew Autiquities, Part i. vol. 2, § 179. The Rabbins also made 
use of this custom in similar comparisons. (Comp. Wetstein and Lightfoot on the pas- 
sage.) In 1 Mace. ix. 37, ff. there is a description of an oriental marriage procession. 

+ In the Cod. D., and several authorities—in particular, the Syraic version and the 
Vulgate—after the words, ἐξῆλθον εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ νυμφίου (ver. 1), we have also, καὶ 
τῆς νύμφης. However, this reading rests upon a false view of the parable; it was 
thought that where the bridegroom was, there the bride also must be. But, according to 
oriental custom, the bridegroom came to fetch the bride, and the maidens conducted her 
to meet him. 


264 Matruew XX/V. 1-13. 


Now, first, as regards the virgins (παρθένοι) we may remark that 
the expression certainly has a special reference, which is best per- 
ceived by comparing with it the following parable of the servants. 
The “ virgins,” like the “‘ servants,” are by no means intended to 
designate all members of the church (Matth. xxiv. 45, the δοῦλοι 
are expressly distinguished from the θεραπεία, who are nevertheless 
to be viewed as members of the same community—the family of 
God), but only those among them who stood in a position like that 
of the apostles and disciples generally towards the Redeemer [?]. 
But even among these, a distinction may be observed between those 
whose relation to the Lord is chiefly that of passive love, and others 
who are characterized by greater activity ; among the twelve, the 
former class is represented by John, the latter by Peter. True, in 
so far as no member of the true church is without either the one or 
the other characteristic, both parables admit of a perfectly general 
application ; but we must not, on this account, overlook the special 
reference to particular tendencies in the Christian life. (Comp. the 
exposition of Luke xii. 35.) The number ten, which Luke xix, 13 
specifies as that of the servants also, appears simply to contain the 
idea of a definite body. According to the Jewish custom, ten form 
an assembly (trp), and hence it was very natural to fix upon this 
number. (Passages in Wetstein in loc. state, that it was usual to 
choose just ten bridesmaids. But Jahn, loc. cit., remarks, that it 
was customary to have as many as seventy ; of course this only ex- 
tended to rich families.) The intensity of chaste love to the Lord, 
which was represented by the virgins, well accords with their wait- 
ing for the delayed approach of the bridegroom, Whilst the ser- 
vants are busily at work, and engaged in a variety of concerns, the 
virgins wait to meet the beloved. (Comp. the remarks on Luke x. 
42, concerning Mary and her relation to Martha.) The fact. that 
they are all characterized as virgins is a proof that the antithesis of 
φρόνιμοι, wise, and pwpat, foolish, is not to be taken in the sense of 
good and wicked, tor the idea of gross transgression is incompatible 


with love to the Lord.* The foolish virgins are merely to be viewed 

* Would it not be safer to reason the other way, and instead of inferring from the 
common application of the name of “ virgins,” that the epithets “ wise” and “ foolish” mark 
no radical discrimination of character, rather to infer from this radical discrimination as 
well as the diffe: c.ice in their destiny, that the name “ virgins” has no such special sig- 
nificancy as Olshausen attributes to it? The distinctions which the author draws from 
the words ‘ virgins” and “‘servants” seem to me forced and fanciful. These terms are 
employed, I think, simply because our Saviour finds in the relation of the virgins to the 
Bridegroom in the Jewish marriage rites, and in that of servants entrusted with funds to 
their absent lord, apposite and striking illustrations by which to enforce the necessity of 
watchfulness in view of his coming. The “ virgins” and “servants” of the parables are 
literal virgins and literal servants; they represent relations rather than characters; and to 
make them good in advance is to forestall the result of the very ordeal by which they 
are tested in the parable. Undoubtedly we should guard against stripping a parable 
of any legitimate subordinate ideas, and of such secondary teachings as may be some- 


MattHew XXY. 1-13. 265 


as representing minds that seek that which is pleasing and sweet in 
the service of the Lord, instead of following him in right earnest, 
and hence neglect to labour after thorough renewal, and to build in 
the right way upon the foundation that is laid (1 Cor. iii. 15). 
The parable describes this lukewarmness in their nature, by saying 
that they neglected to take any oil in their vessels. (Ver. 4, ἔλαιον 
does not seem consistent with λαμπάδες, But it is explained by the 
form of the ancient torches. They frequently consisted of a wooden 
staff, a vessel being let into an opening at the upper end, containing 
a wick, which burnt with oil or pitch, [Comp. Jahn, loc. cit.] This 
contrivance united the peculiarities of the torch and the lamp.) 
The parables explained by the Lord himself (Matth. xiii.) are proofs 
that we need not be afraid of going too far, if we take the single 
features of this parable into account as strictly illustrative. Ac- 
cording to the pervading scriptural symbol, the oil designates the 
Spirit ; the virgins were not altogether destitute of this higher ele- 
ment of life ; their hearts glowed with love to the Lord, which im- 
pelled them to go out and meet him ; but their faith had no other 
root than feeling ; it had not sanctified all their dispositions and facul- 
ties ; and hence, when feeling was no longer sufficient, and nothing 
but thorough self-denial could avail them, the flame of their love 
died away. ‘The severe discipline which was necessary is expressed 
partly by the long delay of the Bridegroom’s arrival, and partly by 
the representation that it was night. This induced slumber, in 
which (with reference to the immediately preceding description, 
Matth, xxiv. 42) the virgins must be regarded as overcome by temp- 
tation, (Ver. 5, νυστάζω is the feebler expression, which signifies 
“to nod the head from sleepiness ;” καθεύδω is the strict term for 
deep slumber.) It might indeed appear that, in this case, sleep 
did not indicate a negligent state of mind, since all, even the wise, 
fell asleep ; but, on account of the immediately foregoing and ex- 
press admonition to watch—which, according to Mark xiii. 37, was 
addressed to all—this is hardly to be admitted ; especially since this 
admonition is again made, prominent, Matth, xxv. 13, in the wind- 
ing-up of the narrative. On the contrary, the description becomes 
much more striking if the meaning is thus understood: “ the 
Bridegroom delayed his coming so long, that at last even the wise 
virgins slept.” This gives great point to the warning ἀγρυπνεῖτε, 
watch, be wakeful. Now the words μέσης δὲ νυκτὸς κραυγὴ γέγονεν, 
but at midnight there is a vry made, ver. 6. shew that there were 
watchers in the church ; although these are not so decidedly distin- 


times given; but in general the attempt to make a parable “ crawl on all fours,” to find 
a significancy in the separate elements instead of simply seizing the central idea, is the 
source of many difficulties and some errors. I cannot but regard Olshausen as thus 
erring in his parabulic explanations.--[K, 


266 Mattuew XXYV. 14-30. 


guished from the virgins in the present case, as in Mark xiii. 34, 
where the θυρωρός, porter, is charged with the special duty of 
watching. The confusion occasioned by the surprise of the Lord’s 
arrival, discloses the difference between the slumbering virgins. The 
wise ones, who have in every respect completely given themselves 
up to the Lord, are able not only to rouse themselves at the sum- 
mons, but to rekindle the glimmering torch into a vigorous flame. 
This the foolish ones cannot do, because they lack the inward supply 
of the Spirit. They therefore seek spiritual support from the wise ; 
but in this critical moment each one can only answer for herself, 
and hence they are directed to them that sell (πωλοῦντες). It is 
perfectly natural to find in the sacred Scripture and its authors an 
explanation of this feature in the parable ; to these the foolish vir- 
gins are recommended to resort, that they may find counsel and 
strength in the distress of their souls. But before the extinct life 
can be quickened again, the Bridegroom comes, and those who are 
not ready see themselves shut out. According to this connexion, it 
is clear that the words οὐκ oida ὑμᾶς, I know you not (ver. 12) cannot 
denote eternal condemnation ; for, on the contrary, the foolish 
virgins are only excluded from the marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 
xix. 7); hence they must be viewed as parallel with the persons 
described, 1 Cor. ii. 15, whose building is destroyed, but who are 
not thereby deprived of eternal happiness. These virgins possessed 
the general condition of happiness, faith (which led them to cry 
κύριε, κύριε, ἄνοιξον ἡμῖν, Lord, Lord, open unto us, ver. 11); but 
they lacked the requisite qualification for the kingdom of God, that 
sanctification which proceeds from faith (Heb. xii. 14.)* In the 
concluding verse (ver. 13) the words ἐν ἡ 6 υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται 
should be removed ; they have probably been inserted from parallel 
passages, such as xxiv. 44, 

Ver. 14-30,—The external form of the second parable—that of 
the servants-—presents no difficulty. The ἄνθρωπος ἀποδημῶν, man 
going abroad (Mark xiii. 34 has ἀπόδημος, the antithesis to ἔνδημος, 
and this is the only instance in which the expression occurs in the 
New Testament), according to Luke xix. 12, is an εὐγενής, noble, 
descended from a family of distinguished rank ; he is here repre- 
sented as travelling to a distance to receive a kingdom there (a type 
of the installation of Christ into, his heavenly dominion), but upon 
his return, even his nearest subjects, the citizens of his own city 
(rodirat), will not obey him. It is quite clear from the parallel in 
Luke, that the ten δοῦλοι, servants (Luke xix. 13),do not mean all 


* An interesting interpretation of the parable of the ter virgins is given by V. Meyer 
in the Blatt. fur hoh. Wahrh. Pt. 7, p. 247, ff. 

+ The transition ὥσπερ yap wants the corresponding member of the sentence. Ac- 
cording to Matth. xxiv. 37, we may supply: οὕτως ἔσται καὶ 4 παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου. 


MarTrHew XXYV. 14-30. 267 


men, or even all Christians indiscriminately, but such as possess a 
decided qualification for the guidance and government of the church. 
The mass under this guidance are the citizens. Matthew designates 
the endowments bestowed upon the servants by the term τάλαντον, 
talent, Luke by μνᾶ, mina. This variation merely expresses the 
freedom exercised by the reporters of the parables of Jesus, in re- 
gard to non-essential points. The sum entrusted to the servants is 
here perfectly unimportant ; all that is intended to be shewn is, 
that the reward of the servant depends upon the wse which he makes 
of what is committed to his charge. The servants (δοῦλοι) are.re- 
presented as the active members of the church, whose duty it is to 
employ the gifts conferred upon them in external labours for the 
cause of the Lord ; and the parable is designed to describe the 
opposite cases of fidelity and unfaithfulness. Hence the talents 
entrusted signify the general gifts of nature, so far only as these 
form the condition of endowment with the gifts of grace. This is 
referred to in the words, ver. 15, “‘ to each according to his several 
ability” (ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν δύναμιν, scil. ἔδωκε). For he who is 
without any natural abilities, is not fitted to be a. powerful instru- 
ment of grace. A general application of the parable may be made, 
in so far as it may be said that every one is entrusted with some- 
thing, for the right use of which an account will be required. But 
this application of the parable is not identical with its original re- 
ference. According to the very close association with chap. xxiv., 
the withdrawment of the Lord after the distribution of the gifts, 
and his return after a long absence (μετὰ χρόνον πολύν), in order to 
hold a reckoning (λόγον συναίρειν = rationem conferre), relates to the 
disciples, whom the Lord, when he departed to the Father, invested 
with spiritual gifts, that being left to themselves they might admin- 
ister till his return, Hence the whole connexion here also re- 
quires the assumption that a return at the time of the apostles is 
spoken of, so that the words after a long time primarily refer to the 
waiting of the apostles. As to the apostles being left to themselves 
after the withdrawment of the Lord, this may appear to stand in 
opposition to such passages as Matth. xxviii. 20, “I am with you 
always, even unto the end of the world.” But this constant spirit- 
ual presence of the Lord in the minds of his people is often concealed, 
and imperceptible ; it is never destructive of free choice, and hence 
does not exclude faithfulness and unfaithfulness, Hence, in regard 
to the later generations of servants, who did not see the Lord in the 
body, their endowment with power from above, of the use of which 
an account is at length to be rendered, must be viewed as extending 
from the moment when Christ first gives a living manifestation of 
himself in the soul, to those seasons in which the individual is left 
to the discharge of cares designed to test his sincerity in the Lord’s 


268 MatrHew XXY. 14-380, 


cause, The return of the Lord is the period of reckoning with the 
servants involving reward for the faithful, and punishment for the 
unfaithful. The faithful are described as those who have increased 
what was entrusted to them ; that is, with these spiritual powers 
conferred upon them by Christ, they have carried on his sublime 
work in his spirit and nature. (The expressions employed to desig- 
nate faithful labour are ἐργάζεσθαι [Luke xix. 16 has προσεργάζεσθαι 
and ποιεῖν. The latter answers to the Hebrew mv and 555, in the 
signification “to acquire.” Compare Gesenius in his Lex. under 
nvyand tz2, To convey the idea of xepdaivery, ‘to make gain,” “to 
obtain advantage,” Luke, xix. 13, 15, uses πραγματεύεσθαι, διαπραγ- 
ματεύεσθαι, which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament ; 
it is the strict term for trade and money transactions, which has even 
passed into the later Hebrew. [Comp. Buxtorf. lex. p. 1796, seq.] 
Thus the parable is founded upon the supposed case of a merchant, 
which has occurred also in a former instance, Matth. xii. 45.) Itis 
represented as the reward of these faithful labourers, that they will 
be called to a higher sphere of activity adapted to their desires, 
The earthly relations of the kingdom of God, upon which the 
“ servants” continually spent their toils, are contrasted, as the 
ὀλίγα, few things, with the πολλά, many things, that is, the affairs 
of the kingdom when it shall be manifested in its heavenly victorious 
form. (Luke xix. 17, 19, gives more specifically, adhering to the 
metaphor, ten and five cities as the reward.) 

The manner in which the parable speaks of the third servant is 
peculiar ; without having gained anything he brought back to the 
Lord what was entrusted to him. It is evident that the design is 
not to describe a man entirely fallen from the faith, an apostate ; 
but one who, although he has not dissolved his connexion as a ser- 
vant, or squandered his talent, yet, from a false view of his rela- 
tion to the Lord, has not used it to his advantage. Hence he is 
called, ver, 30, δοῦλος ἀχρεῖος, unprofitable servant; so that he is re- 
garded as a “servant” of the Lord, although one who has not done 
his duty. His false view of the Lord consisted in overlooking his love, 
and supposing instead an inexorable legal rigour.* (Instead of 
σκληρός, ver. 24, Luke xix. 21 has αὐστηρός austerus, which occurs no 
where else in the New Testament. Luke somewhat modifies the 
parable, by speaking of a σουδάριον [sudarium] napkin, in which the 
money was hid ; Matthew represents it as buried in the earth. The 
talent of course rendered that impossible which might have applied 
toa mina.) By this view of unfaithfulness, a remarkable contrast 
is formed between this parable and that of the virgins, Whilst the 


* Διασκορπίζειν, vers, 24 and 26, is not to be understood as synonymous with σπεῖί- 
pew; it is better to take it = my, in the sense, ‘to purify by means of a winnowing 
shovel.” 


MattTrHew XXYV. 14-30. 269 


guilt of the foolish virgins proceeded from thoughtless presumption 
upon the kindness of the master, this servant failed through an un- 
believing assumption of his severity, so that the two parables are 
complements to each other, and describe the two leading tempta- 
tions of believers in their relation to the Redeemer, to abuse grace, 
or to exclude themselves from access to it by false legality, 

One point in the rebuke administered by the master to his dis- 
obedient servant (ver. 27) requires special notice, viz., the remark : 
ἔδει σε βαλεῖν τὸ ἀργύριόν μου τοῖς τραπεζίταις, thou oughtest to 
have put my money tothe exchangers. (Τραπεζίτης from τράπεζα, 
which Luke has here [xix. 23], “the banker’s table.” Τόκος, in- 
terest, profit. Instead of ἐκομισάμην in Matthew, Luke has ἔπραξα, 
which is commonly used in reference to money, in the sense of exi- 
gere, extorquere.) We cannot regard these words as a perfectly 
useless addition, for they furnish an appropriate thought. The 
fearful servant, who dreaded his master, had evidently refrained 
from laying out the property committed to him, in the way of inde- 
pendent activity for the interests of his master, because he was 
afraid of losing it ; that is—to drop the metaphor—the dangers 
connected with activity for the kingdom of God on earth, on ac- 
count of the manifold temptations and opposing forces of the world, 
restrain many persons, who lack faith in the help of God, from going 
believingly to work according to their abilities. These timid na- 
tures, that are not fitted for independent labour on behalf of the 
kingdom of God, are now advised at least to associate themselves 
with persons of greater strength, under whose guidance they may 
apply their gifts to the service of the Church. The first thing men- 
tioned as the punishment of total unfaithfulness is the loss of the 
gift entrusted, which is then committed, by the command of the 
Lord, to the servant who was endowed with ten talents. The pro- 
verb which follows (ver. 29) in connexion with this proceeding, has 
already been explained in the remarks on Matth. xiii. 12; its re- 
currence here in an entirely different connexion cannot be considered 
strange, when it is remembered that the idea which it contains is of 
such a nature, that the Redeemer could readily employ it in the 
most multifarious applications. The fundamental idea here ex- 
pressed-—viz., that goodness constantly secures richer benefits to him 
who receives it, while it is the curse of sin that it makes even pov- 
erty poorer still—is here also perfectly applicable, Whilst blessings 
are heaped upon the faithful, the unfaithful man, stripped of all the 
gifts conferred upon him, is cast out into darkness (ver. 30). Here 
again, the immediate reference is not to eternal condemnation, but 
to exclusion from the “kingdom,” into which the faithful enter 
The degree of guilt in the case of the unfaithful, determines the pos- 
sibility of their being awakened to true repentance. The kingdom, 


270 Marruew XXV. 31-46. 


finally, is viewed as a region of light, encircled by darkness. And 
an reference to this point, the metaphorical language of Scripture~ 
is very exact in the choice of expressions. Concerning the children 
of light who are unfaithful to their vocation, it is said that they are 
cast into the darkness ; but, respecting the children of darkness, we 
are told that they are consigned to the πῦρ αἰώνιον, everlasting fire; 
so that each finds his punishment in the opposite element.* 

As regards the points of difference presented by Luke, in this 
parable of the servants, we may remark, that they consist, first, in 
the carrying out of the subordinate idea of the citizens, who would 
not that the lord should reign over them. ‘Whilst the one servant 
“represents an inactive member of the body of Christ, the Church, 
who failed to perform his duty, these citizens are open rebels, and 
hence their lord orders them to be killed. It is evident that this 
penal proceeding is essentially distinguished from the reproof ad- 
ministered to the one servant. According to the connexion in Luke 
—as we have already observed—the “ citizens” signify the Jews 
who engaged in a hostile opposition to Jesus, and, in the wider 
sense, all real enemies of Christ. In the second place, the two nar- 
rators differ in the circumstance that, according to Matthew, the 
distribution of the talents was unequal, but the profit realized upon 
that which had been received was equal; whereas in Luke, on the 
contrary, every one receives the same, but the amounts gained are 
different. It certainly is a superficial mode of interpretation to ex- 
plain away these points of variation, as features of no importance ; 
there is no doubt that they have their distinct applications. How- 
ever, I cannot agree with Schleiermacher (comp. the remarks on 
Luke xix. 11, ff.) in the opinion, that they render the parables spe- 
cifically different. The representation of Matthew expresses the 
idea that the Lord himself distributes gifts differently even among 
his disciples, assigning to one a greater, to another a smaller, sphere 
of operation ; but that the Redeemer only looks at the application 
which each one makes of what is bestowed upon him. Luke, on 
the other hand, shews how equal degrees of endowment on the part 
of the Lord, may result in inequality, by means of the different de- 
grees of activity on the part of men. Now, as the tendency of the 
whole parable is to describe the influence of human fidelity in the 
kingdom of God, the representation of Luke, which places this most 
prominently in view, deserves the preference before that of Matthew. 

Ver, 31-46.—By means of the third and last parable respecting 
the coming of the Lord—as we have already remarked on xxv. 1— 
we now obtain the proper data from which to fix the meaning of 
the two preceding ones. The form of transition, “‘ but when” (ὄταν 


* It is not light (the opposite of darkness) in which the children of darkness are pun- 
ished, but fire.—[K. 


MattHew XX/V. 31-46. 271 


dé), indicates something different as the subject of discourse in the 
similitude that follows ; hence we cannot admit with Schott (loc. 
cit. p. 168, ff.), that both the foregoing parables and the words now 
before us, refer to the last judgment. This learned man_ has, 
indeed, given a triumphant refutation of the hypothesis that the para- 
bles relate to the destruction of Jerusalem ; to which event we can- 
not refer a single feature throughout the whole three, and it can 
only be brought into view, in so faras the description in the twenty- 
fourth chapter represents the coming of Christ as connected, al- 
though not identified with it. But according to the view he main- 
tains, that all three parables have reference to the last judgment, 
the third cannot be shewn to have any peculiar character, the right- 
eous (δίκαιοι), and the unrighteous (ἄδικοι), of whom it speaks, 
being made perfectly parallel with the faithful and unfaithful serv- 
ants. If, however, the third parable treats of something different 
from the previous ones, this cannot be anything else than the judg- 
ment of unbelievers, while, in the two that precede, the subject is 
the sifting of believers. True, if we understand the persons judged, 
in the parable of the sheep and the goats, to mean all men without 
exception, the expression πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, all nations, suits this view 
very well; but then, it does not appear who the “least of Christ’s 
brethren” (ἀδελφοὶ Χριστοῦ ἐλάχιστοι, ver. 40) are. If the assemblage 
consists of all men, it follows of necessity that believers themselves 
must be comprehended under that designation ; but it is evident 
thatin these words they are distinguished from the righteous (δίκαιοι) 
and thé unrighteous (ἄδικοι). And, moreover, according to the 
above interpretation, the fact that all the righteous could say: 
κύριε, πότε oe εἴδομεν πεινῶντα κ. τ. λ., Lord, when saw we, etc., ver. 
37, 1s inexplicable. Believers surely would know that the Lord 
regards what is done to his brethren as done to himself. If it be 
said that this is the language of humility, we must oppose such a 
view, for Christian humility is by no means to be conceived of as 
devoid of consciousness. It knows what it does, and its distinguish- 
ing feature consists in this—that it does not acknowledge its work 
as its own, but as the works of God in it. (Such was the humility 
of Paul, who boasted: “I have laboured more than ye all,” but 
adds, “yet not I, but the grace of God that is in me,” 1 Cor. xv. 
10.) Finally, the hypothesis that all men, even believers and per- 
fectly just men, are here to be understood by the term δίκαιοι, is directly 
contrary to the doctrine of the New Testament, that believers shall 
not come into judgment (comp, John iii, 18, v.24; 1 Cor. xi. 31). 
Nor is there any more ground for the opinion, that, in the para- 
ble of the sheep and the goats, merely Christians, without unbe- 
lievers, are meant. For, in addition to the arguments adduced in 
refutation of the view just considered—all of which apply to this as 


272 MarrHew XXV. 31-46. 


well—to take the expression “all nations” as referring to Christen- 
dom, is utterly untenable. It is indeed said, that it denotes the 
Church of the Lord collected out of all nations ; but it is impossible 
to shew that an expression, the fixed meaning of which is so differ- 
ent, can be employed in this sense. Hence, the only alternative is 
to understand the term as denoting all men, with the exception of 
true believers—that is, all unbelievers; and this interpretation being 
adopted, the parable preserves its own internal harmony, as well as its 
right position in relation to those which precede.* The expression 
πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, all nations, then perfectly corresponds with the Hebrew 
pvan 89, in opposition to the people of Israel. The collective body 
of believers is now viewed as Israel. These do not come into judg- 
ment at all, but at the resurrection of the just enter into the joy of 
the kingdom of God. Those who are idle and unfaithful are indeed 
shut out from the kingdom of God; but this act of shutting out 
must not be confounded with the general judgment. Accordingly 
the ἀδελφοί, brethren of Christ (ver. 40) are easily distinguished from 
unbelievers who appear in judgment ; the brethren are believers, and 
because the righteous receive them (δέχεσθαι), they receive the re- 
ward of prophets, righteous men, or believers. (Here compare the 
exposition of the whole passage, Matth. x. 40-42.) There is a 
meaning in the profession: ‘‘ And when saw we thee,” etc., when 
it is taken as the language of unbelievers ; for even the righteous 
among them must be viewed as excluded from the higher conscious- 
ness wrought by the spirit of Christ ; the power of love was active 
in their hearts, without their being themselves conscious of what 
they did. Now if this parable be taken in connexion with the fore- 
going ones, it will be seen how well, according to our interpretation, 
they complete each other, The two first parables contain a repre- 
sentation of the sifting of believers (in conformity with their two 
leading dispositions, the contemplative and the practical); then this 
is followed by the judgment of'the mass of unbelievers ; the former is 
to be viewed as taking place at the resurrection of the just, the latter 
at the general resurrection of thedead, These two matters make up the 
whole of the Redeemer’s beatific and punitive procedure at his coming.T 


* The sense of the parable has already been very justly acknowledged by Keil (in 
his and Tzchirner’s Analekton, vol. i. p. 3). 

+ The remarks of De Wette, in opposition to this interpretation of the third para- 
ble, as applying only to the judgment of non-Christians—that is, those who are not the 
subjects of true regeneration—haye not convinced me of its unsoundness. On the con- 
trary, I think that the only thing that has led this scholar to reject my exposition is the 
unhistorical assertion, that Matthew makes no distinction between the millennial and the 
eternal reigns of Christ. If it be considered that this distinction was a general Jewish 
idea it cannot be understood how Matthew could be free from it, especially when we 
take into account the way in which, as De Wette allows, the whole representation of 
Matthew is modified by the national element. And if Matthew observed this distinction, 
the relation of the three parables cannot well. be determined in any other manner than 
that in which 7 have attempted to define it. 


Matruew XXYV. 31-46. 273 


It is true that this explanation of the third parable appears to 
give rise to other difficulties which do not press upon the first-named 
hypothesis.* For, according to our view, unbelievers (the δίκαιοι) 
would be received to favour, whereas, Heb. xi. 6, it is said that 
‘without faith it is impossible to please God,” and Romans iii, 28, 
“‘ man is justified by faith (alone).” And further, good works would 


* That ‘all nations” here arrayed before the judgment seat are “all men with 
the exception of true believers, ὁ. 6., all unbelievers,” it is impossible to admit. Those 
who are separated from the goats, and placed, as sheep, on the right hand of the judge, 
who are welcomed, as his active friends, into his kingdom, and then go into eternal 
life, are surely regenerate believers if the Bible knows of such a class. Olshausen’s 
argument ayainst this is first that they are distinguished from “those very brethren” 
who are with the judge as his acknowledged friends, and secondly that they evince 
an unconsciousness of their Christian acts incompatible with spiritual enlightenment. 
In regard to the first objection, such a distinction is indeed drawn. But it is ace 
counted for, I think, by the representations of God’s mode of dealing with Israel. 
He had sent prophets and teachers among them, and the Saviour had sent forth his 
apostles and the Seventy. As therefore the reception given to those recognized serv- 
ants and brethren of the Lord, was the test of Israel’s character, so now the Saviour 
transfers the same principle to the assembled nations, and declares them received or re- 
jected according as they had treated him through his accredited agents. This clearly 
distinguishes the “these my brethren” as the previously acknowledged and public min- 
isters of Christ from the men among whom they were sent, ‘‘ He that receiveth you,” ete. 
Secondly, as to the unconsciousness of the righteous of their good deeds, we may remark, 
first, that the unrighteous seem equally unconscious of the proper nature of their delin- 
quencies, and if this does not exclude them from the category of unbelievers, why should 
that of the other class exclude them from the category of believers? But, in the next 
place, the parable itself—if we may so call it—furnishes ample explanation of this uncon- 
sciousness. The Saviour’s grounds of approval and welcome are intentionally and char- 
acteristically placed in the most abrupt and startling form. He expresses in the strong- 
est and most hyperbolical manner the essential spirit of their conduct. He bases his words 
of welcome on the fact that they had rendered to himself personally the most varied and 
important services. They might well hesitate as to the import of such a representation, 
and naturally inquire when they had laid the supreme judge under such obligations; as 
might also the unrighteous be startled at a view of their delinquencies which they had 
never before taken. Andstill further, both the Saviour’s address and their reply seem pur- 
vosely and dramatically constructed in order to bring out the great truth couched in the final 
declaration, that as they treated his messengers and representatives they treated him. This 
same principle, viz.: that of a dramatic scene appended for the sake of a more full exhi- 
bition ofa great principle is, I think, frequently applicable to the explanation of the para- 
bles. In the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, the workmen are represented as 
murmuring against their employer, in order to give scope for the statement of his absolute 
sovereignty in the dispensation of his favours. In that of the Prodigal Son, the intro- 
duction of the elder brother, with his fault-finding at the demonstrations of joy over a 
recovered profligate, (while conveying a side intimation to the Pharisees: “if you are as 
good as you profess to be, you should rejoice at the restoration of the vile and degraded,”) 
ig mainly intended to introduce the father’s touching statement of the reasons for rejoic- 
iuz over a lost one found. So the dramatic scene in the parable of the rich man and 
Lazarus, is neither intended to teach that the blessed and the lost hold such parleyings 
with each other, nor that the lost will or do have any benevolent regard for the living, 
but simply to give scope for bringing out in strong relief the law of retributive justice, 
the unchangeableness of the final state, and the impotence of miracles to benefit those 
who aro insensible to moral and scrivtural truth.—[K. 


Vou. I—18 


274 MatrHew XXYV. 81-33. 


be presupposed in unbelievers, whereas, ‘‘ whatsoever is not of faith 
is sin” (Rom. xiv. 23). [Among those ignorant of Christ, there is 
indeed none to whom faith can be ascribed, Rom. x. 14. And just 
as little any who could do a single good work, 7. e., one free from all 
mixture of sin. But there are among them, doubtless, those who 
perseveringly strive after freedom from sin (Rom. 11. 7), and struggle 
against sin (Rom. ii. 14), and grieve over it, and thus have a con- 
scious need of deliverance from it. Such men are then accepted in the 
sense of Acts x. 35. Not that they are justified by their imperfect 
works. But they are doubtless susceptible of still hearing the gospel 
of grace in Christ, and of believing in it, and of being healed 
by these “leaves of the tree of life,” Rev. xxii. 2.] 

Ver. 81-33.—The Parousia of the Son of Man at the judgment 
is here described just in the same manner as in Matth. xxiv. 30. 
The prophetic form being adopted, the several circumstances at and 
after the advent of the Lord, although not exactly interchanged, are 
yet not plainly and chronologically distinguished. No precise ac- 
count of the order is given till we come to the Apocalypse, and the 
data there supplied are the guide by which the elements in these 
passages must be separated. In the same way we may explain the 
circumstance that Matth. xxiv. 30 does not differ at all from this 
description of the appearing of the Lord at the general judgment, 
although its primary reference is to an earlier period in the revela- 
tion of his glory. (Just in the same manner the prophets of the 
Old Testament immediately connect with the appearing of the Mes- 
siah all those effects of his work which, in reality, would only be un- 
folded in thousands of years.) Instead of the ἄγγελοι, angels, who 
here form the retinue (Matth. xxiv. 30 the δύναμις) of Christ, who is 
described as the Sovereign, in Rey. xix. 14 (comp. this with ver. 8 
and Jude ver. 14), the ἅγιοι, saints, are mentioned. Now as our pass- 
age also (ver. 40) intimates that these will be present, the expres- 
sion ἄγγελος, angel, messenger, is probably to be taken here in a 
more comprehensive sense, so as to include also the just made per- 
fect (Heb, xii. 23). (Compare Zech. xiv. 5, where the description 
of the advent of the Lord represents the =)7p as appearing with 
him. It is true that, according to the modern hebraism, this term 
is understood to mean the angels, but it is a question whether 
it does not contain an intimation of the idea, that those men 
who were glorified in ancient days will be with the Messiah, and 
will appear with him. The LXX. render the passage πάντες ol 
ἅγιοι. Finally, in its form, this similitude is but imperfectly de- 
veloped. In reality it combines two similitudes which cross each 
other, ‘The Redeemer is first compared to a king, who sits 
upon his throne and pronounces judgment; and secondly to a 
shepherd who divides the sheep. The ἀφορίζειν, separating, in- 


MarrHew XXY. 34-36. 275 


volves the idea of the κρίνειν, the separation of the two classes, 
good and bad, who were mingled up to that time. The meta- 
phor of the sheep and the goats is found in the Old Testament 
(comp. Ezek. xxxiv. 15, ff.; Isaiah xl: 11) ; and indeed it is ἃ com- 
mon Old Testament idea, that the right hand is that which is ap- 
proved and loved, the left that which is rejected. 

Ver. 34-36.—In the first place, the righteous (δίκαιοι) are com- 
mended by the king, and represented as the heirs of the kingdom 
(Matth. v. 5). By the Divine kingdom, we are here to understand the 
perfect state of the creation, called in another place (Rev. xxi. 1, ff.) the 
new heaven and the new earth. There the characteristic of the king- 
domo; God, the dominion of the willof God, which extends by degrees, 
will be perfect (1 Cor. xv. 27) ; for the very last manifestations of 
evil will be destroyed, and the harmony disturbed by sin will be re- 
stored. Hence the relation between the kingdom of Christ on earth 
and this eternal kingdom of the father (βασιλεία τοῦ πατρός) is as 
follows : in the former, although that which is good prevails, yet 
evil still exists ; in the latter the influence of evil is perfectly anni- 
hilated. Here a difficulty occurs, in that this kingdom being repre- 
sented in our passage as prepared for the κληρονόμοι, heirs (Rom. viii. 
17) from eternity (ἡτοιμασμένη ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου). Comp. Matth. 
xii. 35 ; Ephes. 1. 4. Similarly, ver. 41, the πῦρ αἰώνιον, everlast- 
ing fire, is described as prepared for the wicked. (The reading 6 
ἡτοίμασεν ὁ πατήρ μου must yield to the ordinary reading ; but it 
makes no difference in the sense, because ἡτοιμασμένον can only be 
explained by supplying ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός.) But in the latter case the 
ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, from the foundation, etc., is wanting, and this 
is a circumstance that must not be overlooked. Often as the election 
of believers is represented in the New Testament as eternal and 
dependent upon the predestination of God, it is never said of the 
wicked, that they are predestinated as such. 

We have fully discussed this important doctrine concerning the 
relation of the Divine decree to the righteous and unrighteous, in 
the exposition of the principal passage that treats on that subject 
(Rom. ix). Here we only offer the following remarks. According 
to the nature of the opposition between good and evil, which is only 
relative, no one is good owt of God or besides God, but only through 
God and in God. . Hence the doctrine of Scripture—which proceeds 
from the deepest knowledge of Divine things—traces what is good 
in the creature to the only eternal Good, and accordingly. teaches a 
predestination of the saints ; for he who is good and happy can only 
become so by God’s will and choice. The Divine choice, however, 
does not destroy freedom, but establishes it ; it is only the capac- 
ity, the power to choose evil, which is done away by grace [ulti- 
mately in the perfected, in so far as it elevates them]. But the 


50 Ff | Marrnew XXV. 87-40. 


case is different with evil. God, who is entirely free from evil, de- 
termines no one to evil ; to act evilly is rather the prerogative of 
the creature. Hence sin, as proceeding from the creature, has not 
the character of the absolute. After evil has come into existence 
through the creature, its punishment may be ascribed to God, but 
God can never appoint even the wicked themselves to wickedness. 
The Holy Scriptures, in perfect harmony with this, teach a preedes- 
tinatio sanctorum (although without gratia irresistibilis), but they 
say nothing about a reprobatio impiorum. He who is saved is so 
through God, and through God alone ; he who is lost is the sole 
cause of his own misery. 

The works of love performed by the righteous are now mentioned, 
as the proofs by which they evince their calling to the kingdom of 
God. (Comp. such passages in the Old Testament* as Isaiah lviii. 
6, 7; Job vi. 14, xxii. 6, ff, where also eternal life is connected 
with works of love.) These, as works of true love, presuppose liv- 
ing faith ; for faith and love are as inseparable as fire and warmth ; 
the one cannot exist in its real nature without the other; and if 
they ever appear isolated (1 Cor. xiii. 2), the true nature of one or 
other is destroyed. Accordingly the reference is not to external 
actions of charity—these may be dead works; but the subject of 
discourse is the living efiluence of the inward tide of love. It is in 
love as such that godliness consists, for God is love. 

Ver. 37-40.—The ignorance of devout men respecting their 
works is humility, but not Christian humility, which cannot be 
conceived of as unconscious, because Christian life, in its perfection, 
presupposes the highest consciousness. Such passages as Matth. 
vi. 3 cannot be applied here, for they do not commend the absence 
of consciousness, but merely discountenance any appropriation of 
works as our own. The dialogue of course is to be regarded as the 
form of the similitude, but it has its truth in so far as the interior 
nature of man will manifest itself, at the judgment, in its proper 
character, and will, as it were, utter a real language. To those 
who have been actuated by a humble childlike love, there will then 
be a disclosure of the living connexion that subsists between the 
Redeemer and his people, so that what is done to his brethren is 
done to him, (The expression μικροί, little ones, as we have already 
shown, in the remarks on Matth. xviii. 6, is applied to believers, 
partly in reference to the world and its persecutions, and partly in 
reference to regeneration. But here ἐλάχιστος, least, is employed in 
opposition to μέγας, great, and among the brethren themselves, 
great and little are distinguished, as Matth. v.19. The distinction 
is designed to point out in a striking manner the difference betwecn 


* From these sources the same view has been received by the Rabbins. Compare 
Jalkut Rub. fol. 42, quicunque hospitalitatem libenter exercet, illius est paradisus, 


MartrHew XXV. 41-46. \ 277 


the act and the recompense ; love exercised toward the /east of the 
brethren is followed by the richest reward.) The brethren are rep- 
resented as present (τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν), and as distinguished 
from the δίκαιοι, to whom the language of the Judge is addressed. 
Hence the scene may be described as follows : those who are judged 
stand before the throne of Christ, on the right and on the left ; then 
by the side of the Judge, and therefore not appearing in judgment, 
stand believers, who do not come into judgment, but in and with 
Christ judge the world (1 Cor. vi. 2). 

Ver. 41-46.—The very same criterion by which eternal life is 
secured to the just, forms the reason why the unjust are consigned 
to everlasting punishment (κόλασις αἰώνιος). As he who can love 
has the power to receive love, yea, as love is itself happiness and 
eternal life, so the privation of love is misery and incapability of 
happiness. Accordingly the punishment here spoken of is not arbi- — 
trary or positive ; the punishment of want of love is association 
with those who are destitute of love, in that state of discord in the 
external as well as the internal life, which constantly proceeds from 
the absence of love. And hence the κόλασις αἰώνιος, everlasting 
punishment, is not identical with the exclusion from marriage 
(Matth. xxv. 13) ; on the contrary, the expression denotes eternal 
condemnation. Nor can the strictness of the contrast be mitigated, 
at least not by means of exegesis, on account of the term ζωὴ αἰώνιος, 
eternal life ; tor the observation of De Wette—that if a strict an- 
tithesis were intended, annihilation must have been specified in 
opposition to life—is sufficiently refuted by the fact that here the 
predominant idea expressed by the word life is not existence, but 
holy and happy being. In regard to the view founded upon the 
antithesis between good and evil generally—that good alone is 
eternal, and rests in the nature of God himself, whilst evil is an ac- 
cident, having nothing substantial in its nature, and therefore the 
consequences of evil, which is temporal, can only be temporal—we 
allow that these ideas are certainly not devoid of truth. But at the 
same time, it must not be overlooked, that the mode of representa- 
tion adopted in Scripture nowhere favours the hypothesis of the 
restitution of all things (ἀποκατάστασις τῶν πάντων) by any positive 
declarations, and hence in the exegeti¢c examination of this question 
—which at last resolves itself into the view taken of free choice and 
its relation to Divine agency—it is best to adhere to the mode cf 
expression which Scripture has selected. However, the doctrine of 
everlasting punishment is not to be sought in every place where 
the punishment of sin is mentioned; this has been done long 
enough. Throughout the New Testament, redemption is the object 
kept in view, and hence the Lord, here as always, concludes his 
discourse not with condemnation, but with eternal happiness. And 


278 ἡ Marrnuew XXV. 41-46. 


with a glance at this, we will pass on to the consideration of that 
gospel of love, which the disciple of love has bequeathed to us, 
wherein the secret things of God, and especially the profound coun- 
sels of his grace, are disclosed. The eternal Word proceeding from 
the bosom of the Father, in order that he might bring the happi- 
ness of eternal life to those who were lost, fathomed the abyss of all 
sin and suffering, and sealed the covenant of peace with his own 
sacred blood, that he might procure for all eternal redemption. 


THE 


GOS? Ὁ F OM: 


Volat avis sine meta, 

Quo nec yates, nec propheta, 
Evolavit altius. 

Tam implenda, quam impleta, 

Nunquam vidit tot secreta 
Purus homo purius. 


EXPOSITION 


OF THE 


αι ιν ποθ ΠΝ, 


INTRODUCTION. 
§ 1—Or Joun PERSONALLY. 


Accorpiné to the evangelic history, the two celebrated brothers 
among the twelve apostles—John and James—were born in Beth- 
saida* in Galilee. Zebedee and Salome were their parents ;} the 
former supported himself by fishing in the neighbouring sea, but 
he does not appear further in the Gospels as marked by spirit- 
ual endowments. Salome, on the other hand, was amongst the 
women who ministered to the Saviour from their own substance, 
and her affection towards him whom she had learned to honour as 
the Messiah, was so great that she did not forsake him even at his 
cross (Mark xv. 40). By this pious mother the first germs of reli- 
gion may have been planted in the heart of theson. The parents 
of John do not appear to have been exactly poor ;{ the acquaint- 
ance which he himself had with the High Priest (not merely with 
his servants, John xviii. 15) indicates a certain respectability in the 
family from which John had descended. 


* The Hebrew name of the place is pany nz, answering to the German Fischhaus 
{Fish house.) ‘ 

+ The assumption of a relationship between the family of John and that of Jesus, 
is indeed apocryphal (Thilo Cod. Apocr. vol. i. 8363); but yet it throws light upon many 
things; in particular, the otherwise extraordinary act of the dying Saviour in commend- 
ing Mary to John. Salome is said to have been the daughter or the sister of Joseph. 

t The fishing on the Galilean Sea cannot possibly have aMdowed the acquisition of 
much wealth. lLiicke appears to deduce too much from Luke y. 10, when he understands 
the passage as intimating that the families of John and Peter were in partnership, so as 
to carry on the trade of fishing on a large scale. The expression, ἦσαν κοινωνοὶ τῷ 
Σίμωνι certainly cannot be rendered: “they were friends, companions of Simon.” The 
dative requires the translation: “they were in association with Simon,” namely, in their 
business; but there is nothing to show that this association was a permanent one. It is 
simplest to understand the words as meaning that they were at that time carrying on 
the fishing in combiation, perhaps only for a few days, 


282 INTRODUCTION. 


Meanwhile this is a very unessential circumstance, and we can 
in no wise infer from it that he enjoyed any splendid training which 
would account for the subsequent bent of his mind, and his peculiar 
ministry. The characteristics presented by our Evangelist are to be 
explained purely from his elevated calling, which, under the influence 
of the Holy Spirit, could attain the most happy and perfect de- 
velopment. ‘This, his vocation to act for lofty Divine ends, first dis- 
closed itself in his joining the Baptist. In him the Evangelist rightly 
recognized the first rays of the approaching sun, and while he was 
attracted by their lustre, the light which displayed its power in the 
Baptist led him to the fountain from which it gushed forth ; John 
came by means of the Baptist to Jesus. (John i. 35.) John soon 
belonged, with his brother James and with Peter, to the Lord’s 
most select and confidential circle ; but he alone rested on the 
bosom of Jesus, on which account he is commonly called ἐπιστήθιος. 

The relation of Christ to James is not precisely known; but 
what we learn of Peter is quite adapted, from its contrast with 
John’s mode of thought and disposition, to place the character of 
the Evangelist in a clearer light.* In Peter, manly force and fiery 
zeal predominated ; while John appears with a nature of virgin- 
softness, tranquil, and contemplative. Zeal continually brought 
Peter forward as the spokesman of the apostles, so long as the Lord 
was with them on earth, and after his ascension to heaven, as the 
representative and advocate of the infant Church; while John 
neither travelled much, nor addressed large masses of people, nor 
converted great numbers, but rather reposed in quiet and contem- 
plation—so long as the Lord continued his work upon earth, leaning 
on his breast, and after he returned to the Father, listening with 
an open spiritual ear to his secret revelations. 

It may therefore be said, that whilst Peter loved Jesus more 
than did the other disciples (John xxi, 15)—that is, whilst in him 
the active energy of love possessed greater fulness—Jesus loved 
John more than he did the rest ; that is, the susceptibility to the 
powers of the upper world—the negative, passive capability of love 
—presented itself as predominant in John. Accordingly, whilst 
Peter’s appointed sphere was that of practical activity, John was 
the apostolical representative of everything noble in the mystic 
and the intellectual. He was not called first to cut the way with 
the sword of the Spirit, as Peter and Paul, but to conduct those 
churches which had been founded, which were growing and develop- 
ing, into the depths of the inner life, and to unfold to them the 
treasures of knowledge. Grotius meant something similar when he 
termed John φιλοιησοῦς, friend of Jesus, but Peter φιλόχριστος, friend 
of Christ; though in these terms, he did not exhibit so much John’s 


* Compare the Comment. on Matth. xiv. 28, ff 


INTRODUCTION, 283 


susceptibility of love—his virgin tenderness—as his affection for the 
human person of the Saviour ; whilst Peter loved not so much his 
person as his office and dignity. Subtle as this distinction is, Ido not 
think it altogether érwe, since there manifestly reveals itself in 
Peter a strong impulse of love towards the Saviour personally, 
though he never betrays the feminine susceptibility which we discover 
in John. 

Much, it is true, of the information which the Gospels supply 
concerning John, appears to stand in opposition to this view of his 
character ; so that we might believe this tenderness of love and 
contemplativeness of nature to have been founded not so much in 
his calling and natural disposition, as in a work of grace within him. 
But while it is undeniable that the power of grace purifies and 
transforms the sinful peculiarities of man, it is equally certain that 
it does not substitute opposite characteristics for the natural dispo- 
sition. It by no means converts the tender, gentle soul into a Luther, 
or changes one full of energy and force into a Melancthon ; but it 
sanctifies and perfects those natural abilities of man which are 
originally imparted by God. 

Hence it certainly cannot be supposed that John, before his 
second birth, possessed an ardent aspiring temperament like Peter’s, 
for out of this, such a nature as John’s never could have been form- 
ed ; nor can anything amounting to proof be deduced from those 
passages which have been appealed to in support of such an asser- 
tion. The main passage is Luke ix. 54, compared with Mark iii. 
17. According to tne first, both the sons of Zebedee, John and 
James, said, when the inhabitants of a Samaritan town would af- 
ford no shelter to Jesus, “‘ Lord, if thou wilt, we will command that 
fire fall from heaven and destroy them, as Elias did.” Jesus, how- 
ever, rebuked them and said, ‘‘ Know ye not of what spirit ye are 
the children ?” In the other passage, both brothers are called υἱοὶ 
βροντῆς, sons of thunder, indicating a character likely to utter such 
expressions as that which has just been adduced. But in the ex- 
planation of Luke ix. 54, it has already been shewn, in the first 
place, that no connexion subsists between these passages, while 
the epithet, “sons of thunder” points out nothing censurable, but 
designates the new name, that is, the new nature of both Zebedee’s 
children ; and, in the second place, that the ebullition of anger 
against the Samaritans affords no evidence of a peculiarly vehement 
temperament, but merely indicates a momentary confounding of the 
spirit of the Old and New Testaments, and of their relative points of 
view. Keeping then in view the character of John, as affectionate 
and contemplative, yet without the feebleness or effeminacy too fre 
quently ascribed to him—this occurrence will not lead us into any 
error as to its essential tone. Nor do we regard the passages Matth 


284 INTRODUCTION. 


xx. 20, ff, and the parallel, Mark x. 35, ff., as affording any more 
evidence than those quoted above of an aspiring disposition in 
John. According to Matthew, the mother asks with the two sons ; 
according to Mark, the sons alone ask for two places of honour in 
the kingdom of the Lord, at his right hand and at his left. It is 
probable that the propensity, naturally cleaving to every man, to 
become eminent and exalted, was on this occasion stirring in the 
minds of the disciples ; yet even the context, indicates that this 
was not their radical principle of life, and the ultimate ground 
of their request ; for the Lord did not rebuke any ambitious and 
corrupt motive in this request, but merely their ignorance of the 
greatness of what they asked. ‘ Ye know not what ye ask,” said 
Jesus, “nor the way which would lead to that which ye desire.” It 
is thus more than probable that the essential import of their peti- 
tion was, that they might be allowed ever to dwell in immediate 
nearness to him whom they loved with all their soul, (The same 
view has already been indicated in the Commentary on these pas- 
sages.) It was obviously not so much the request of the two disci- 
ples, as the manner in which the ten expressed themselves in 
reference to it (ver. 24), which gave rise to the subsequent address 
of Jesus (Matth. xx. 25, ff); and the words in which he portrays 
dominion in the kingdom of God, are intended rather to unfold to 
the ten the nature of such dominion than to reprove the sons of 
Zebedee. They express the sentiment: “ It is well to strive after 
dominion in the kingdom of God, since no one rules there but the 
wost humble and most lowly ; if, therefore, the two disciples seek 
for themselves places of dignity in the kingdom of God, they desire 
something which presupposes the deepest humility and the purest 
love.” Accordingly, we can only infer that, while John participated 
in the general sinfulness of human nature—which is self-evident— 
he was endowed by God with the greatest Joveliness, in order to ex- 
hibit in him, through the transformation of his nature by the re- 
generating power of grace, that very engaging aspect which has 
always won for him the admiration of the church. 

With regard to the latter circumstances of John’s life, it appears 
from Gal, ii. 9, that he spent a considerable time in Jerusalem, and 
a later tradition reports that he lived there until the death of Mary, 
the Lord’s mother—who is said to have died in the year a. Ὁ. 48— 
in order that he might completely fulfil the charge of the dying 
Saviour to take care of his mother. Although this information can- 
not be regarded as historically established, still the date certainly 
approaches very closely to the truth. 

Of many of the journeys attributed to John nothing is recorded, 
nor does his character render it likely that they ever were taken. 
We only know that, probably when the apostles ceased from devo- 


INTRODUCTION. 285 


ting their chief attention to the people of Israel, John went to 
Ephesus, in Asia Minor, where Paul had laboured before him.* His 
residence in this important city of the old world is perfectly demon- 
strable from history, After Irenzeus, who received the most certain 
information on this point from his teacher Polycarp, the immediate 
disciple of John, it is related by Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, 
Jerome, οἷο John lived there till the time of Trajan, towards 
the end of the first century, and attained the greatest age of all the 
apostles. For a long period, his grave was shewn there as a sacred 
relique.t Probably it was there that he composec his writings 
(Comp. § 4 in this Introduction), which in their contents and form 
are suited to the state of things prevailing in Asia Minor. It is 
only with respect to the book of Revelation that the assumed ban- 
ishment of the Evangelist to the Isle of Patmos occasions any diffi- 
culties ; these, however, can be considered and solved only in the 
connected inquiry respecting the authenticity of that work. Among 
the incidents of John’s life that have come down to us, is the ac- 
count of the Evangelist’s preservation in boiling oil, which Tertullian 
(de preescr. her. ὁ. 36) communicates, and which is doubtless 
legendary. The circumstance that John had no hard sufferings and 
persecutions to endure—as well as the fact of his not dying a martyr 
—is traceable to the peaceful and purely spiritual character of his 
life ; and in this respect, also, a distinction might be established 
between the characters of Peter and John (comp. John xxi, 18-22). 
The spirituality and power of his work as an apostle strikingly ap- 
pear in the account given by Clement of Alexandria (quis div. salv. 
ce. 42) concerning the youth who had fallen among the robbers, as 
also that by Jerome (vol. iii, 814) about the exhortation to love, into 
which the disciple of love compressed everything worthy of desire ; 
and nothing can be said against their credibility. 

With respect to the narrative of the meeting between the Evan- 
gelist and Cerinthus (Huseb. H. Τὰ. iii. 3, 28, iv. 14), I entirely con- 
cur in the view taken by Liicke (Comment. Pt. i. p. 19, in the second 
edition, which I always quote), viz., that there is no admissible 
ground for considering the story untrue ; on the contrary, 3 Epis. 
John ver. 10 appears suggestive of the key to John’s conduct to- 
wards that heretic, and even this, when rightly understood, con- 
tains nothing contradictory to the gentle character of the Evangelist. 
The bias under which this was for along time viewed as a fabrication, 
proceeded simply and solely from that weakness and indifference, 

* Since even in the second Epistle of Timothy no mention is made of John, and 
Timothy there appears quite by himself, it is probable that John went to Ephesus 
but a little before the destruction of Jerusalem, at the close of Nero’s reign. 

+ Comp. Iren. adv. her. iii. 1, 3; Euseb. H. E. iy. 14, v. 20; Clem. A. quis dives 


saly. 6. 42; Jerome ad Galat. vol. iii. p. 314. 
1 Euseb. H. E, vii. 25 p. 455, edit. Stroth. 


286 INTRODUCTION. 


with respect to heretics, which persons had accustomed themselves.to 
regard as toleration and kindness. 


/ 


§ 2. Or THE GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPEL BY JOHN. 


The Gospel of John possesses stronger historical testimonies to 
its genuineness, than any other portion of the New Testament, or, 
we may say, of all antiquity.* For, although other writings of the 
New Testament can exhibit testimonies to their apostolic origin just 
as old and as numerous, still the Gospel of John has this advantage, 
that its author lived a generation longer than the rest of the apos- 
tles, and dwelt and laboured for many years in one of the most flour- 
ishing communities of the ancient church. John, as we have 
already remarked, lived in Ephesus, and died there in the reign of 
Trajan, at the end of the first century of our era, about a hundred 
- years old. 

We know, from the letters of the contemporary Pliny,t to what 
an extent Christianity prevailed at that time in Asia Minor; 
everywhere in the cities there were numerous bodies of believers, 
and even in the rural districts the Gospel had made considerable 
progress. 

Accordingly, John, the last witness of the life of the Lord re- 
maining on earth, must have been held in the greatest esteem by 
the numerous Christian flocks; his writings must have been fre- 
quently read, and thus it must have been rendered next to impos- 
sible that a spurious work should be attributed to him, and especially 
one of such importance as the Gospel of John, without immediately 
calling forth the liveliest opposition, History, however, knows of 
no objection to John’s Gospel. Eusebius (Hccl. Hist. ui. 25) enu- 
merates it with the three first Gospels among the Homologoumena, 
and even the oldest teachers of the church acknowledge it asa 
genuine monument of John, Ireneus, in particular, says that sev- 
eral old teachers gave him information concerning John and his 
Gospel.t He doubtless intended among these persons, in the first 
place, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who had known John personally; 
and, secondly, Papias of Hierapolis in Phrygia. Eusebius indeed 
(Heel. Hist. ii, 39) declares that the latter had not known any of the 
holy apostles, but it is plain that Eusebius misunderstood the words 
of Papias, as we have alxeady fully pointed out.§ It is true that 
direct quotations from the Gospel of John are noteadduced in the 


* Comp. Calmberg diss. de antiquissimis patrum pro evangelii Joannei αὐθεντίᾳ tes- 
timoniis. Hamb. 1822. 

Τ᾿ Comp. Plin. Epist. x. 97, printed in my Monum. hist. eccl., vol. i. p. 23, seq. 

1 Comp. my Geschichte der Evangelien, p. 219, ff. 

§ See Olshausen’s Genuineness of Writings of N. T. p. 118—[Tr. 


INTRODUCTION. 287 


fragments of Papias, nor does Eusebius (iii. 830), who had read his 
writings, inform us that Papiascited John. But it does not follow, 
that the bishop of Hierapolis might not have known the fourth 
Gospel ; on the contrary, Eusebius makes no remark as to whether 
the teachers of the church, about whose works he gives intelligence, 
knew or did not know certain writings, except in instances where 
uncertainty existed concerning their origin. This, however, was not 
the case with the Gospel of John, and he therefore maintained per- 
fect silence as to this work, and as to their use of it. 
Besides these oldest witnesses, we find the work of the Evange- 
t John acknowledged and used by very many others, and that in the 
most diverse districts and regions. Justin Martyr had it in his col- 
lection of Memorabilia, Clement of Alexandria used it asa genuine 
apostolic composition ; so did Tertullian in Carthage and Irenzeus 
in Lyons ; nor was it less known and used by the Syrian and the 
old Italian churches, in the primitive canons of which, in connexion 
with the other Gospels, that of John also is found. Nor was this 
general harmony in the acknowledgment of John’s Gospel confined 
to the members of the Catholic Church ; it was used among the 
sects also as genuine and apostolic ; the Gnostics, for instance, and 
the Montanists, and even Pagans (e. g. Celsus), regarded the Gos- 
pel of John as an acknowledged source of Christian doctrine. | 
Among the former, it is true that the Marcionites, just as the 
judaizing sects, did not use John ; this, however, was not because 
they doubted its authenticity, but, on the contrary, because they 
acknowledged it. They did not believe that John was to be num- 
bered with those apostles who had properly apprehended the Gos- 
pel ; the former (the Marcionites) considered only Paul—and the 
latter (Ebionites) only Matthew—to be the genuine apostles. Thus 
the very opposition of these sects to the use of John’s Gospel cén- 
firms the evidence for its authenticity. The remarks which Bret- 
schneidert has opposed to these historical facts, are partly of no 
importance, and partly rest upon misunderstood passages of the 
Fathers ; upon which subject I have enlarged in my work already 
frequently referred to (p. 242, ff). 
The only trace of a contest respecting the apostolic origin of 
John, is afforded by the Alogians,} an insignificant sect, which rose 


* Comp. my Geschichte der Evangelien, p. 288, ff. What Credner has adduced 
against this (Beitrige zur inl. Halle, 1832) is so intrinsically improbable, and so utterly 
unfounded, that no one has acknowledged it. (Comp. Liicke Comm, vol. i. p. 20, note.) 
Justin Martyr, according to Credner, was indeed acquainted with our four Gospels (yet 
he leaves this doubtful with respect to that of John), but seldom or never used them! 
According to him, Justin used only the Petrine Gospel. 

+ Comp. his probabilia de evangelii et epistolarum Joannis Apostoli idole et origina 
Lips. 1820, p. 211, seq. 

¢ Compare my Geschichte der Evangelien, p. 255, ff 


288 INTRODUCTION. 


in opposition to the Montanists. Their opposition, however, is per- 
fectly unimportant, because they rejected the genuineness of this 
Gospel without any historical ground, and merely for polemical rea- 
sons. Moreover, their entire character and influence were trivial 
and insignificant, and no person of consequence belonged to them. 

Arguments, however, more acute and profound than were pro- 
duced by these feeble opponents of John in antiquity, have been 
recently urged against the genuineness of the work under consider- 
ation. These require a short notice ; more especially because they, 
for the most part, rest upon correct observations, from which false 
conclusions have been deduced. We here notice only the work of 
Bretschneider, already alluded to, because it is the most acute of 
those which have been penned against the genuineness of John’s 
Gospel. * 

The weightiest among all the remarks which have been di- 
- rected against the Gospel of John by this scholar, is that the 
Saviour, as delineated in the fourth Gospel, appears a perfectly 
different person from that which he is described to be in the 
three other Gospels. The difference between the Christ of John 
and that of the synoptical Evangelists is, in fact, very great. The 
Saviour, as portrayed by John, as compared with the Saviour of the 
synoptical Gospels, exhibits a form, as it were, etherealized and 
invested with a magical character. Everything in him is spiritual 
and profound. His discourses are replete with genuine mysticism and 
Gnosis. Nothing that is partial, narrow, merely national, is to be 
found. On the other hand, in the description of the synoptical 
writers, Jesus appears in a national garb, teaching in the mode 
common with the Jewish instructors, acting in a manner entirely 
national. With all the richness of thought in the discourses of 
Christ, yet most of them, as given by the three first Evangelists, 
want that peculiarity which, in the nobler sense of the words, we 
may term mystical Gnosis. 

* While Bretschneider has declared himself vanquished by the weight of the argu- 
ments adduced against his probabilities, de Wette recently repeats his objections to the 
authenticity; to say nothing of the positive language used by Dr. Strauss. De Wette 
maintains (p. 8) that an apostolic disciple composed the Gospel from the communications 
of an apostle, only with the unshackled use of his own mind; and that in truth this was 
a disciple of the Evangelist John. Meanwhile all that is urged against John himself, 
might, with equal propriety, be said against a disciple of his, supposing him to have been 
a true disciple of John, and acknowledged by him as such. For, according to de Wette’s 
lax views, in particular, there would be no difficulty in admitting that the apostle him- 
self committed all the errors which have induced him to fix upon a disciple of the apostle 
as the author of the Gospel. At the same time de Wette himself, at the conclusion of 
the passage to which we have alluded, admits the unsatisfactory nature of such internal 
evidence as he adduces, and acknowledges the incontrovertible character of the opposite 
external evidence. ‘The recognition of John as the author of our Gospel, even after 


the most violent assaults, will ever continue prevalent in the Church.” I am of the same 
opinion: the most hostile attacks upon the truth can only place it in a more triumphant light 


INTRODUCTION. 289 


True, we find also among biographies of human sages, 6. g., in 
that of Socrates, a similar variation ; Plato gives him a more spirit- 
ual aspect than does Xenophon. But the difference between the 
two representations does not stand out so forcibly, either in this 
instance or in any other, as in the case before us ; and did we rec- 
ognize nothing more than a human element in Christ, it might in fact 
be scarcely conceivable how one amongst his disciples could give a pic- 
ture so entirely different from that drawn by the others, But this 
phenomenon becomes intelligible to him who believes that in Christ 
the fulness of the Godhead itself was manifest, and displayed in 
humanity a perfect model of all that is beautiful and morally great. 
And connecting with this the supposition that all the disciples of 
the Lord—and “partiodlarly the Evangelists—possessed very differ- 
ent personal endowments, we discover how, in the different mirrors 
of their minds, the same sublime, rich image, could variously pre- 
sent itself, since no individual was in a position to catch all the 
rays that issued from the sun ef the spiritual world, and unite 
them into one image. It was reserved for the profound, contem- 
plative mind of John to receive its tenderest beam, and thus repro- 
duce the most spiritual representation of the Saviour. Each 
of the others apprehended a single aspect of his great work, all 
of them, however, looking at him rather from without than from 
within. 

To this internal ground of difference add the external one, that 
John wrote with a wholly different design from that of the three 
first Evangelists, and for an entirely different class of persons (of 
which more, presently); and hence, his style of treatment would differ 
widely from theirs. 

And while thus the difference between the description of Christ 
given by John and that given by the three first Evangelists 
forms no ground for doubting the authenticity of John—but goes 
rather to prove the sublimity which invested the character of 
Christ, and the high endowments of the. Evangelist—just as 
little question of this authenticity can be founded on the remark 
that the discourses of John could not have been delivered.* Even if 

* The inapplicability of the mythical hypothesis to John’s Gospel, after the general 
remarks showing it to be inadmissible with reference to the evangelic history as a whole 
(in the Comment. vol. i. 3d edit.), requires no further demonstration. All that is there: 
adduced only serves to accumulate evidence in favour of John; since he was from the 
beginning an eye-witness even of the most secret and momentous circumstances in the 
life of the Lord; since he took charge of the mother of Jesus, and from her might gain 
an accurate acquaintance with all the incidents of his history in childhood (the fact that he 
does not contradict the statements of Matthew and Luke, is, moreover to be viewed as a 
confirmation of them, because he must have known them); and finally, since he lived 
the longest of the apostles, and wrote his Gospel at a time when Christianity had already 


spread through all the regions of the orbis terrarum, and that not in a sequestered corner 
of the earth, but in Ephesus, one of the great centres of business in that day 


Vor. IL.—19 


290 INTRODUCTION, 


this remark were substantiated, it would afford no testimony against 
his genuineness, since in the apostolic Matthew we meet with dis- 
courses framed by the Evangelist himself : provided the same Spirit 
who inspired the Holy Teacher animated him who framed the dis- 
courses, such freedom in the treatment of them can be no disparage- 
ment. In the case of John, however, the fact itself is not estab- 
lished. Nothing but the false supposition that the discourses in 
John are too profound, too thoroughly digested, to have been deliv- 
ered to the disciples, much more to the people, could have led to this 
view. Jesus intentionally spoke much that certainly was not in its 
full sense understood by those around him; but the Holy Ghost 
was to bring all that he said to the remembrance of the disciples, in 
order that an object worthy of investigation and study might be 
bequeathed to them for a later period, when they and the Church 
should have made further attainments. While, therefore, 1 am 
not at all of opinion that John noted down those discourses which 
he has recorded, word for word, and from these notes inserted them 
in his work, I still believe that the discourses of Christ given us by 
John are given substantially as the Saviour delivered them. They 
in nowise resemble Matthew’s method of compilation, but are confined 
so strictly to the historic occasions which called them forth, and are 
in themselves so finished and entire, that every thing seems to me 
indicative of their originality.* 

With the main arguments which we have thus referred to, may 
be coupled some subordinate observations of Bretschneider—such 
as, that the author here and there betrays that he is no eye-witness, 
appears not to be a native of Palestine, makes incorrect statements 
respecting the last Passover, and so forth. All these objections 
have already been cleared up in the special refutation of Bret- 
schneider’s hypothesis,+ and the substance of them is considered in 


* Liucke thinks (p. 103) there can be no mistake in the opinion, ‘that the dis- 
courses of Jesus related by John manifest the reflection of John’s mode of speech and 
thought, or reproduction through the medium of a subsequent development of his mind.” 
If this be understood as referring merely to the form of the discourses, I perfectly assent 
to it; but the contcnts themselves appear to me too peculiar to have sustained an altera- 
tion in passing through the mind of John. Yet even as it respects the form, there are 
important passages, such as Matth. xi. 27, 28, which sound quite like John’s, while John 
vi. 1, ff, and xii. 1, ff, come very near to the representation in the synoptical Gospels. 
The principal cause of the difference between the discourses of Jesus in the synoptical 
Gospels and in that of John, must doubtless be sought in the varied individual character- 
istics of the reporters, who were variously attracted by different discourses of Christ. 
In Christ all forms were united, but each one recounted only that which entered most 
deeply into his own heart. The affinity between the mode of speech and representation in 
John’s Epistles and that in the Gospel, is satisfactorily explained by the susceptible char- 
acter of John, who was able to make the sentimert and spirit of his Divine Master all 
his own. 

+ Comp. Hemsen iiber die Authentie des Johannes. Schleswig, 1823; and especially 
L. Usteri Commentatio critica, in qua Evangelium Joannis, genuinum esse ex comparatis 


INTRODUCTION. 291 


the exposition, as the several passages occur which have reference 
to the matter. 

Finally, as to the integrity of the Gospel. This also has been 
disputed ; the concluding chapter in particular is assailed with 
plausible arguments ; and, besides this, single passages are assailed, 
such as John v. 3, 4, vii. 53—viii. 11. But we reserve the explana- 
tion of these paragraphs also until we come to the interpretation. of 
the passages adduced 


§ 3. Or THE DesicN oF JOHN’S GOSPEL. 


In the numerous and important investigations concerning the 
object. pursued by the Evangelist John in the composition of his 
Gospel,* it is abundantly evident that a sufficient distinction has 
not been made between principal and subordinate designs. Ina 
writing of the compass which John’s Gospel embraces, an author 
may obviously keep in view and prosecute several objects at the 
same time ; while he nevertheless ordinarily directs his attention 
and his aim, from the beginning to the end of his work, towards 
one thing only as, strictly speaking, the main purpose—the subor- 
dinate designs presenting themselves in single passages rather than 
in the whole. Accordingly I recognize as the chief object of the 
Evangelist, that which he himself states (John xx. 31), viz., to 
place before the eyes of the world the life of Christ the Son of God, 
neither for the Jews alone as Matthew, nor for the Gentiles alone 
~as did Mark and Luke, but for all those, among Jews and Gentiles, 
who possessed the ability and the disposition to engage in profounder 
speculations respecting Divine things, and whom we will designate 
by an appellation comprising both the true and the false in their 
character, viz., gnosticising Mystics.t 

Depth of mind prepared the Evangelist to satisfy the lofty 
claims of these men. On the one hand, he could appreciate what 
was pure in the attempt to penetrate to a deeper acquaintance with 
the essence of Divine things ; while, on the other, he knew the 
temptations arising from this tendency, and the imminent danger 
of error with which it threatened mankind. He knew, further, in 
quatuor Evangeliorum narrationibus de ccena ultima et de passione Jesu Christi osten 
ditur. Turici. 1823. 

* Comp. Licke on the History of the same. 

+ Comp. Schreckenburger’s Beitr. zur Kinl. ins N. T., p. 60, ff, and Steudel’s Aufsatz 
uber das Verhaltniss des Johannes zur Christlichen Guess in the Tabinger Zeitschr. 
1835, No.1. Some of the Fathers adopted the same view—in particular, Irenzeus, Epiph- 
anius, and Philastrius; only they confined their attention too much to one or another 
Gnostic sect, especially to Cerinthus, the Nicolaitans, or the Marcionites. In this sense, 


Trenzus, overlooking the Gnostic elements which already existed in the time of John, 
says (ady. her. iii. 16) that John wrote providens blasphemas Gnosticorum regulas 


292 INTRODUCTION. 


what errors these gnosticizing Mystics were already more or less in- 
volved, and saw himself in the position to meet them in all main 
points, by profound, unadulterated truth ; and accordingly it was 
necessary so to shape his labours as an author, that doctrinal state- 
ment should accompany the polemic element. The affectionate 
and mild disposition of the beloved disciple not only left no trace 
of acrimony or bitterness, but even shrank from particular and direct 
attacks. The simple representation of the true, eternal Mystic and 
Gnosis (t. e. the deeper, essential, Divine knowledge, in opposition 
to the merely conceptual) rightly appeared to him the most suitable 
agency by which he might refute all false Gnosis, and at the same 
time, while attracting to this knowledge, by means of its own beauty 
and glory, all those nobler minds of whom there were doubtless 
many amongst the Jewish and Pagan Mystics, might disengage it 
from all false images of this kind. We may therefore see in John 
what from the Christian point of view, is the purest, noblest form 
of polemics. It is that which contends against its opposite rather 
by the power of the truth unveiling itself in its beauty, than by 
positive assault ; thus accomplishing far more than by the latter 
method, because positive attacks generally call forth and embitter 
what is sinful in man, while the mere disclosure of the truth makes 
_ common cause with what is noble in the hearts of adversaries them- 
selves, and so enlists them among its friends and defenders. 

If, however, agreeably to what has been stated, I recognize, as 
the main object pursued by John in the composition of his Gospel, 
a doctrinal and polemic aim against a tendency of mind widely pre- 
vailing at the time; I cannot confine my thoughts, either with 
Treneeus (adv. heer, 11. 12) merely to Cerinthus and his adherents, 
or with Epiphanius and Philastrius to the Nicolaitans or the Mar- 
cionites, or even with some of more recent date, 6. g. Grotius and 
Herder, merely to the Sabians, or the disciples of John; while at 
the same time I cannot exclude either of the latter two. In partic- 
ular, the expressions of the Evangelist respecting the Baptist (John 
i. 6) evidently have a polemical leaning against the erroneous opin- 
ions of the Sabians concerning their master. J. D. Michaelis, Storr, 
Hug, οἷο, certainly took the. most correct view, when hee Ἐπ 
tained that John had in his eye these and the rest of the Gnostics 
in apostolic times. These learned men, however, appear to have 
formed too narrow a notion of polemics, overlooking the fact, that 
the Gospel is just as much, and almost more an invitation to the 
true Gnosis than a refutation of the false. The latter is rather to 
be regarded as naturally involved in the representation of the 
former. In like manner it seems to me that Kleuker’s theory 
of a reference in John to the gross views of Judaists, confounds 
the negative with the positive character of his Gospel. Carnal 


INTRODUCTION, 293 


Judaism is certainly refuted by the spirituality of the Gospel, 
but there is no direct reference to this contrast. The peculiarities 
in the language, and the choice of matter, throughout the entire 
work, indicate a pervading reference to individuals of a Gnostic 
tendency, and on that account I do not hesitate to consider this the 
main object of the Gospel before us, without, however, wishing to 
exclude special references, in single passages, to particular sects, as, 
for example, the Sabians. 

Connected with this main design of the Evangelist, there ap- 
pears to be another of a more incidental character, viz., that of 
supplying the complement of the three first Gospels ;* a design 
at once spiritual as to its tendency, and material in relation 
to the occurrences and discourses. Clement of Alexandria (in 
Euseb. H. E. vi. 14) attached importance only to the former, while 
Eusebius of Caesarea regarded only the latter ; both, however, must 
be united in order to portray with accuracy the character of John 
in his relation to the three first Evangelists. ΤῸ sketch perfectly the 
image of Christ, it was not sufficient to portray him in the spiritual 
manner employed by John ; there were needed also material addi- 
tions in the way of incidents and discourses, to bring out all that 
was important to be known of his character. Yet we cannot regard 
this latter object, even with both its parts in combination, as the 
main purpose in the composition of the Gospel, because occasion- 
ally something is related which has been already touched upon by the 
other Evangelists ; and especially because deviations from the ac- 
counts of the synoptical writers occur without being reconciled. 
(Comp. in particular, John’s account of the resurrection, with those 
of the other Evangelists.) Both these facts would be inconceivable 
if John had written his Gospel for the express purpose of completing 
the three already in use in the church ; moreover, in this case there 
would hardly be such an entire absence of allusion to the synoptical 
authors as we find existing ; whereas the matter becomes perfectly 
consistent if we assume that John had reference, in connexion with his 
main object, to existing accounts of the life of Jesus.t The supply of 


* As to the filling up of the synoptical Gospels by John, I quite agree with the senti- 
ments expressed in Hase’s Leben Jesu (p. 181, note 3). Eusebius remarks (H. E. iii. 24, 
edit. Stroth. p. 155) that John wished merely to give an account of the first year of 
Christ’s ministry, since the other Evangelists had commenced their history with the im- 
prisonment of the Baptist. But the mention of this imprisonment is merely by way of 
anticipation (comp. the Comm.), not a chronological cireumstance in the narration of the 
synoptical writers; besides which, John gives us information concerning the latter part 
of the life of Jesus, and indeed enters far more into details respecting it than the three 
first Evangelists. 

+ After renewed consideration, I prefer this mode of understanding the relation of 
John to the synoptical Evangelists to that proposed by Liicke. This scholar (p. 152, ff.) 
is of opinion that John presupposes the oral Evangelical traditions, but not our written 
Gospels. But since, according to the testimony of history, these did exist before the 


294 INTRODUCTION. 


deficiencies was in part then a matter of course ; for alike John’s 
peculiar mental characteristics and his object, differing widely from 
those of the other Evangelists, necessarily led him to other points 
than those to which they had directed their labours. 

With this supplementary position of the fourth Gospel, I am 
also inclined to connect its chronological character. (Comp. the 
remarks in the Comm. vol. i. Introduction, § 7.) Itis obvious that to 
give accurately the days which separate one occurrence from another, 
or to furnish minute information respecting the feasts which Jesus ob- 
served in Jerusalem, was unimportant, so far as the main object of 
the Gospel was concerned ; for the Gnostics were accustomed to re- 
gard such external things as small and trifling. If, therefore, we 
would associate the chronological character of the Gospel with its 
chief design, we must maintain that it was just on account of this 
Gnostic neglect of chronology that John was careful respecting it. 
Now this relation between the two things can scarcely be shewn to be 
probable. But the explanation of the regard which John paid to the 
chronological element becomes the more natural if we assume that he 
failed to find in the synoptical Gospels an account of the Lord’s re- 
lation to those feasts in Jerusalem by which the time of his public 
ministry could be measured. The Evangelist has supplied this by 
no means unimportant defect, so far, at least, that we are in a posi- 
tion in some measure to fix the term of Christ’s ministry ; although 
we must give up the attempt to insert the single events reported by 
the synoptical Evangelists, into the periods between his journeys to 
the feasts. 

In accordance with the resting-points suggested by John him- 
self, we have divided the Gospel into three nearly equal parts, so 
as to facilitate a view of the whole. The first part extends as far 
as John vi. 71, to the journey to the Feast of Tabernacles ; the 
second reaches to xi. 57, the last journey to the Passover, and com- 
prehends a period of six months ; the third to xvii. 26, the history 
of his sufferings, and includes six days. The extent of the first 
cannot be precisely determined,* on account of the uncertainty at- 


composition of John’s Gospel (how long before it matters not to this question), it appears 
inconceivable that John should not have become acquainted with them, in a city like 
Ephesus, where everything was concentrated; whilst if he knew them, he could not 
have avoided mentioning them. The instances adduced by Liicke are not of such a kind 
as to render it impossible to admit a knowledge of our:canonical Gospels on the part of 
John, if we once allow that the strict design of the apostle was not the completion of 
the synoptical works. 

* Several of the Fathers, 6. g. Irenzeus (i. 3, 3, ii. 20, 22), Clement of Alexandria 
(Strom. i. 174), Origen (de prince. iv. 5), Tertullian (adv. Jud. c. 18), limit the ministry of 
Christ to one year. But in coming to this conclusion, they appear to have followed 
not so much what is intsmated in the Gospels, as prophetic passages of the Old Testa- 
ment, 6. g. the passage in Isaiah Ixi. 2 (Luke iv. 18), and Daniel’s seventy weeks. A 
strange contrast with this view is formed by the entirely unfounded assertion that Christ 
attained the age of fifty years. (Comp. Iren. ii, 22; Euseb. H. E, iii, 23.) 


INTRODUCTION. 295 


taching to the passages v. 1 and vi. 4. (Comp. the interpretation 
there given.) At any rate, however, two Passover feasts are spoken 
of, which Jesus attended during his ministry, before the Feast of 
Tabernacles (vii. 1, ff.), and accordingly, the first period includes at 
least more than a year anda half, perhaps even more than two 
years and a half, which latter supposition is at all events the more 
probable. 


§ 4, Time anp PLAcE oF ComposiTIon, 


As to the place where John may have composed his Gospel, 
nothing certain can be determined ; but the later history of the 
Evangelist leads to Ephesus, where, as we know, he took up his 
permanent abode. The conjecture that John composed his Gospel 
in this famous commercial city of the old world is confirmed partly 
by ancient tradition, since Irenzeus (adv. heer. 111. 1) and Eusebius 
(H. E. vi. 8) mention Ephesus as the place of its composition ; and 
partly by the fact that its design, as above referred to, is eminently 
suited to this city and its neighbourhood. For it was precisely in 
and around Ephesus that the Gnostic doctrine prevailed, and must 
have pressed itself upon John’s attention, as a phenomenon of im- 
portance to the church ; hence the very wants of this locality satis- 
factorily explain the form of representation which he adopted. 

From the Gospel itself, we can only infer that it cannot have 
been composed in Palestine, and for natives of that country ; for 
Jewish manners and customs are treated as unknown, and are on 
this account explained. (Comp. John ii. 6, 13, iv. 9.) Another 
traditional statement, that John’s Gospel was written in the Isle of 
Patmos, is supported only by doubtful testimony, e. g. the spurious 
treatise of Hippolytus ‘‘on the Twelve Apostles.” The synopsis 
of Holy Scripture ascribed to Athanasius represents John as merely 
inditing the Gospel in the island, and says that it was published by 
Gaius in Ephesus. (Comp. Liicke’s Comm. Pt. i. p. 120.) Hence 
the statement that Ephesus was the place of the composition only 
gains from this greater probability, 

As to the time of the composition, the Gospel itself furnishes 
nothing whatever that can determine it. An appeal has indeed 
been made to chap. v. 2, in proof that Jerusalem was yet standing 
when John composed the Gospel. But the words ἔστε δὲ ἐν τοῖς 
Ἱεροσολύμοις, and there 1s in Jerusalem, may just as well be applied 
to a recollection of the state of the city and to its environs, or to 
the destroyed city itself, where in fact the κολυμβήθρα, pool, was still 
remaining. We therefore only arrive at a determination of the trme 
by means of John’s relation to the synoptical Evangelists. Ac- 
cording to the foregoing paragraph, it is already clear that John 


296 INTRODUCTION. 


must have written later than the first three ; and this is also con- 
firmed by the tradition of the ancient church. (Comp. Clemens of 
Alexandria in Euseb. H. E. vi. 14, Epiphanius her. li. 19.) We 
are thus at once carried beyond the time of the destruction of Jeru- 
salem ; for since the first Evangelists wrote immediately before this 
catastrophe, John must have composed his Gospel after it. Tradi- 
tion supplies nothing more definite in reference to the time of the 
composition ; for the accounts of Epiphanius (her. li. 12) and of 
Suidas (8. v. Iwdévyqc)—that the work was composed in the year 90, 
or indeed, according to the latter, in the year 100—although they 
cannot vary much from the truth, are of no value to us as means of 
proof; partly because they are not harmonious, and partly because 
they belong to a period far too late, 

There is therefore only one remaining circumstance by which to 
determine the time, viz., the relation of the Gospel to the other 
writings of John, particularly to the book of the Revelation, in 
which we recognize an authentic Johannine document. The con- 
tents, no less than the form of the Apocalypse, indicate that its 
composition was earlier than that of the Gospel. I place it (as will 
be hereafter shown, with the grounds of my opinion,) between the 
death of Nero and the destruction of Jerusalem, Between the 
composition of the Apocalypse and that of the Gospel, however, a 
period of some length seems to have elapsed, as the Gospel exhibits 
a considerable increase of facility in writing Greek. Consequently 
we cannot be far from the truth in placing the composition of the 
Gospel between the years Α.Ὁ. 80 and 90. 

The mention of the relation between the Gospel and the Apoca- 
lypse leads us to the language and style of the former work. It is 
hardly needful to mention that the original language of the Gospel 
is Greek ; the view taken by Grotius, Bolten, and Bertholdt,* that 
it was originally written in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek, 
is to be regarded as sufficiently refuted. And the Greek in the 
Gospel, as compared with the style of the Apocalypse, evinces much 
greater skill and ability. The language of the Apocalypse is full of 
harsh and even obyious grammatical inaccuracies ; in the Gospel, 
there is nothing of the kind; the language is easy, free, and 
flexible, and has only the general Hebraic complexion of the 
Hellenistic dialect, and that by no means in the degree found in 
Matthew. 

Nothing is simpler than to ascribe this increased fluency to longer 
practice, which must have enabled John to clothe the abundance of 


* Bertholdt assumes with Bolten errors in the translation from the Aramaic, in John’s 
Gospel, without, however, claiming that the Gospel was originally written entirely in 
Aramaic. He thinks that only the diegeses from which John elaborated his work were 
written in Aramaic. 


INTRODUCTION. 297 


his sublime ideas, more and more naturally, in the garb of the lan- 
guage which circumstances necessarily induced him to use, 

On comparing the language of John with the style of other New 
Testament authors—in particular with that of Paul—one thing 
presents itself as specially characterising the former, viz., the use of 
4 number of words upon the right apprehension of whose import 
surns the understanding of what is peculiar in the entire work. To 
this class belong the words λόγος, φῶς, σκότος, ζωή, ἀλήθεια, χάρις, 
κόσμος, μένειν, γινώσκειν, etc. These expressions are employed by 
John in a profound and spiritual sense, in which they are not else- 
where usually applied. The Evangelist certainly has not invented 
the words and employed them for the designation of his own ideas ; 
we are rather to assume that the Lord himself, in his discourses, ex- 
pressed the depth of his knowledge by means of these and similar 
terms, and that John so profoundly apprehended the peculiar ideas 
conveyed in them, that he could use them with the point and de- 
finiteness of meaning characteristic of his language, which here, as 
always, forms the. outward expression of the writer’s inward life. 
This peculiarity in the language of John is closely connected with 
another. The sententious, parabolical, and figurative style pre- 
vailing in the first three Gospels, as also the dialectical char- 
acter of Paul, to a great extent disappear in the language of our 
Evangelist ; John’s thoughts unite the utmost simplicity, with a 
metaphysical spirituality ; they are marked by a sharpness of con- 
ception which yet has not its origin ina mere reflective process. 
Drawn from the depth of contemplation, they are yet far removed 
from the obscurity and confusion of mysticism ; expressed in the 
easiest language, they unite the profoundness of the genuine mystic 
element with the clearness and sharpness of the purely scholastic, 
Where, indeed, the organs of contemplation slumber or are un- 
developed, there John’s depth, with all his perspicuity, must ap- 
pear like obscurity ; but for such a grade of culture, the Gospel 
of John was not written ; the synoptical writings are more adapted 
to it. 

With these two peculiarities of John, a third is necessarily con- 
nected, viz., that we do not discover in him that absence of com- 
ment which so touchingly marks the child-like style of the other 
Evangelists. John perpetually hovers with his own consciousness 
over the facts related, and the discourses reported, judging them 
from his own point of view ; hence the frequent explanations and 
remarks on the words of the Lord, which he draws from his own 
subjective experience, and which, in a manner peculiar to himself, 
he so blends with the very discourses of the Lord that it is often 
difficult to point out with certainty the line of demarcation. Ob- 


* Le., word, light, darkness, life, truth, grace, world, abide, know, ete.—[K. 


298 INTRODUCTION 


servations of this kind, however, only serve to shew the reader that 
John has passed beyond the child-like level ; they never attain a 
character which would disturb or wholly destroy the purely objective 
nature of historical narration. 

- Among the modern authors who have penetrated more deeply 
into the peculiarities of John’s ideas, Seyffarth deserves special men- 
tion, in his Beitrage zur Specialcharakteristik der Johaneischen 
Schriften (Leipzig, 1823). Throughout our Exposition we shall 
take notice of his views. On the grammatical peculiarities, Liicke 
should be consulted in preference to all others (in his Comm. Pt. i. 
p. 125, ff). The work of Schulze (Schriftstellerischer Charakter des 
Johannes, Leipzig, 1803) contains miscellaneous collections which 
need to be sifted. 


§ 5. Lirerature. 


Among the Fathers, the labours of Origen, Chrysostom, and 
Augustine on the Gospel of John are preserved to us. Fragments 
of lost patristic commentaries are collected in Corderii Catena pa- 
trum in evang, Joannis. Antwerp, 1630. Besides the interpreta- 
tions of the Reformers, Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and Beza, the 
following separate treatises are—in connexion with the general 
works already mentioned in the first volume—worthy of special 
notice : Lampe commentarius exegetico-analyticus, Amsterd. 1724, 
3 voll. ; Mosheim’s Erklirung des Johannes, published by Jakobi, 
Weimar. 1777 ; Tittmann meletemata sacra. Lips. 1816; Liicke’s 
Commentar tiber das Evangelium Johannis. Bonn, 1820-24, 2 voll. 
2d edit., 1833 ; Tholuck’s Commentar zu dem Evangelio Johannis, 
Ist edit., Hamburg 1827, 5th edit., 1837 ; Klee’s Erklirung des 
Johannes, Mainz, 1828 (the latter work is intended for Catholic 
divines) ; Matthei’s Auslegung des Johannes, Gittingen, 1837, vol. 
i., which contains only the first fourteen verses of the first chapter. 
On the doctrinal system of John we have, in addition to the disqui- 
sition by Grimm (Jena, 1825), only Neander’s Darstellung im 
Apost. Zeitalt. voll. ii. 


1. 


FIRST PART. 


FROM THE BEGINNING OF CHRIST’S MINISTRY TO HIS JOURNEY 
TO THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. 


(John i. 1—vi. 71.) 


§ 1, Proemium. 
(John i. 1-18.) . 


ON comparing the commencement of John’s Gospel with those 
of the other Gospels, we find its peculiar character presenting itself 
at once in a manner not to be mistaken. The Procemium contains, 
as it were, the quintessence of the whole work, alike in the ideas, and 
in the language and form of representation. For, while Matthew 
and Luke proceed from the genealogy of Jesus, and the history of his 
childhood, John so completely presupposes the acquaintance of his 
readers with Jesus, in his earthly character, that he speaks of 
him, and of the sublime character of his work, without even 
having mentioned his sacred name. He names the Baptist, in- 
deed at once but introduces even him as a person substantially 
known. John’s profound representation proceeds from the eternal, 
original existence of the Word with the Father.* Mark’s com- 
mencement has only an apparent correspondence with this, The 
latter Evangelist also, it is true, presupposes as known the 
genealogical notices, and the history of the childhood in Matthew 
and Luke ; he, however, opens his Gospel, not with the eternal ex- 
istence of the Son with the Father, but with the beginning of 
Christ’s oficial work on earth. The character of John’s opening is 
exactly adapted to its assumed design. Those readers who had a 
Gnostic bias would assuredly feel themselves attracted from the 
very commencement, and incited to further perusal—so completely 
do the thoughts of the Procemium enter into their circle of ideas. Its 
genuineness and perfect correspondence with the whole work cannot 
therefore be doubted by any one who possesses the general qualifi- 

* Yet John was by no means wanting in nationality. Comp. the treatise by Bauer 


(Zeitschr. fur spec. Theol. vol. i. No. 2, p. 158. ff.), ber den alttestamentlichen Hinter- 
grund im Evangelium des Johannes. 


. 


300 Joun I. 1. 


caticns for perceiving the unity of a composition in all its parts. 
This same effect which the Proemium must have had upon the 
Gnostics of the apostolic time, has been produced through all the 
centuries of the Christian era, and still exercises its influence in the ~ 
present day, upon all those who long after a deeper and more essen- 
tial knowledge of God. The unfathomable depth of the words acts 
as a secret charm upon the spirit of the enquirer ; we cannot refrain 
from looking into them and trying to fathom their depth, and meas- 
ure their extent. As, however, they conduct us to the Uncreated 
and Original, we can attain neither to the one nor the other, and the 
inquirer is compelled to turn from the external words into himself, 
and into the depth of his own mind, and thus to ascend from the 
knowledge of himself, and from the revelation of the Divine in his 
own heart, to the original source of all revelation. It is in connex- 
ion with this inward experience that the enigmas in the mysterious 
commencement of our book are first solved ; and to seek the solu- 
tion of the latter without the former would be a vain effort. 

As a peculiarity in the form of the Procemium, it may be ob- 
served that it is composed of simple, short, condensed propositions, 
without conjunctive particles. Ver. 1-5, only «ac occurs—from ver. 
6 onwards, only ἵνα to ver. 12, when δέ occurs for the first time. In 
this short, concise style—next to the richness and depth of thought 
—lies mainly the great difficulty of the Procemium. 

As to the composition of the Procemium, it by no means con- 
sists of an unarranged mass of thoughts, but is throughout pervaded 
by a close connexion. This connexion is indeed hidden, and at first 
sight it would seem that only ver. 1-5, 11 and 14, strictly belong to 
the course of thought, ver. 6-9, 10, 12, 13, 15-18, being adjuncts ; 
and this is in fact correct ; in the verses first mentioned, the main 
points of the Procemium are expressed. The manner in which these 
are related to the subordinate parts is first discovered when we 
recognize that the commencement of John’s Gospel contains, as it 
were, a history of the Logos, 1. 6., of his several, gradually advan- 
cing forms of manifestation. This view being taken, the whole 
gains life, and the connexion unfolds itself as follows. The first 
four verses contain a pure description of the essence of the Divine 
Logos, drawn from profoundest intuition. He is eternally with 
God and is himself God, organ of the creation of all things, 
source of the life and light of men. He is not all this, however, as 
merely enclosed within himself, but, on the contrary, he reveals him- 
self (ver. 5, φαίνει, shines) continuously, although the darkness did 
not apprebend him. This fifth verse furnishes a general and com- 
prehensive description. of the work of the Logos, in so far as the 
incarnation, which is also a shining of the light in darkness, is 
included under the meaning of ¢aiver, In order to distinguish the in- 


Joun I. 1. * 50}. 


carnation of the Logos as the culminating point of his work among 
mankind, from his earlier agency, and at the same time to shew 
what the grace of God had done to assist men in receiving the 
Logos, he mentions the witnesses of the coming light, the prophets. 
As such, the Baptist only is named as a kind of representative of 
the prophetic order, because he closed their line, and presented the 
most recent exhibition of the prophetic character. The Evangelist 
then proceeds to say, with allusion to the mistakes of John’s dis- 
ciples, that the Baptist was not himself the Light, but merely a 
witness of the light which was then about to come into the world 
(ver. 6-9). True, John continues, v. 10, the light of the Logos had 
always been active in the world, but the world had not recognized - 
it. Now, however (at the incarnation), he came to his own, 7. e., to 
the people of God chosen by him (ver. 11). As regards the mass 
éven of these, they certainly did not accept him ; but yet there 
were some who did accept him, and these received regeneration 
through him; he made men spiritual, while he himself became 
flesh and dwelt amongst us (ver. 12-14). This is then confirmed 
by the testimony of the Baptist himself ; in the incarnation a higher 
form of the revelation of the Logos presented itself than in the great 
previous revelation through Moses (ver. 15-18). In opposition to 
this view, Bleek (Stud. und Krit. 1835, No. 2, p. 414, ff) is in- 
duced by the words ἦν ἐρχόμενον, was coming (ver. 9) to understand 
the incarnation even in this ninth verse ; and Liicke, in his second 
edition, accords with him ; Tholuck, however, on the contrary, has 
justly opposed them, and declares himself in favour of that 
view of the connexion given above. For, according to Bleek’s 
hypothesis, in the first place, the connexion between verses 8 
and 9 cannot well be established ; in the next place, the same. 
thing—viz. the incarnation of the Logos—would be expressed, by 
means of various phrases, four times (ver. 9, 10, 11, 14), which is in 
itself improbable; and especially the words ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, he was in 
the world, are not suited to the idea of the ἐνσάρκωσις, incarnation 
—they plainly point to the more general agency of the Logos before 
the incarnation. 

To understand then the Procemium, we must consider more 
closely the leading idea in the term Adyoc, word.* If it be in- 
quired, at the outset, what constitutes the strangeness of the term, 
it evidently is not the idea of Divine specch itself that surprises us ; 
for since speech, whether inward or audible, is the customary mode 
in which the human spirit manifests itself, human speech is alse 


* Compare my Festprogramm, Ostern 1823, tiber Heb. iv. 12, 13—which contains a 
development of the idea of the Divine speech—printed in my Opuse. Theol. (Berol. 1833- 
8) p. 125, seq. Comp. also Daub’s Abbandlung tber den Logos, in Ullmann’s and Um- 
breit’s Stud. 1833, No. 2, p. 355, ff. 


302 + Joun I. 1. 


naturally attributed to God as the perfect Spirit. But that which 
strikes us, is the fact that the Divine Word is here treated of as an 
entity, a Person. 

Now, that deeper knowledge of God which apprehends him not 
as a mere abstraction, but as a living Being, clearly sees that the 
original Word of God must be an entity. For, from the womb of 
life, only life and being can go forth ; moreover, the original word, 
or original thought of the eternal God, can only be the conscious- 
ness of himself, which is as eternal as God, and which, as perfect 
consciousness, is entirely equivalent to God; hence the original word 
of God is the entity of God, completely homogeneous with himself. 
But just because the deeper knowledge of God lies so far from the 
reach of those who are estranged from him, not only has the revela- 
tion of this idea been frequently misunderstood by men, but it was 
only by degrees that the idea itself could be disclosed to them. The _ 
Old Testament writers do, indeed, acknowledge the idea of the Di- 
vine specch, and in like manner the plurality of persons in God ; 
but the Word itself nowhere appears as a personality; but only as 
an agency of God. Even in the remarkable passage, Psalm xxxiii. 
6, where the Word is placed in connexion with the Spirit, although, 
in looking back from the “New Testament point of view, we recog- 
nize perhaps the eternal Word, yet the idea of personality is not 
definitely expressed. The same holds good of the analogous doc- 
trines among the Hindoos and the Persians. The Hindoo Oum, 
and the Persian Hom and Honover,* appear rather as the spiritual 
agency of the power of the Original Being than as personal ex- 
istences. Nay, even in the New Testament the Divine speech 
(ῥῆμα τοῦ Θεοῦ), appears mainly as Divine activity, whether 
in an individual action, or the aggregate agency of the Divine 
being. (Comp. Heb. iv. 12, xi. 3.) It is only in the language of 
John that the idea of the personality of the Word is definitely ex- 
pressed. (Comp. on 1 Johni, 1; Rev. xix. 13.) The other wri- 
ters use another name for the same sublime personage ;f he is 
called ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Son of God, as born from the essence of 
God ; υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, the Son of Man — #38 12 (Daniel vii. 18), 
as the archetype of humanity. It is only in the profound Proverbs 
(comp. chap, viii. 22, ff, with xxx. 4) that the idea of the Logos, 

* Compare the collected quotations in Biumlin (Versuch tiber den Logos, Tubingen, 
1828). The Owm comprehends Brahma, Vishnoo, and Seeva, and is everything in them; 
he is the pure manifestation of Brahma, but impersonal. Hom corresponds verbally with 
Om or Oum. He is called an influence of Ormuzd, and is consequently of a more derived 
nature. Honover, again, is the influence of Hom, and accordingly stands yet a degree 
lower. Among the Chinese, Tao would answer to the Logos. (Comp. Biiumlein, p. 
30, ff. 

t ee justly makes the same remark (loc, cit. p.51). This scholar, in another 


place (p. 63), erroneously intimates that in John ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is the Logos clothed with 
the σάρξ, (Comp. John i, 41 18.) 


Joun I. 1. 308 


which is there introduced under the title of Wisdom, appears in a 
kind of transition from the general impersonal conception to the 
personal. Still, the term “ Word of God,” for the idea, is wanting ; 
in the passage, Prov. xxx. 4, the idea is expressed by the New Tes- 
tament term, ‘‘ Son of God.” It is very remarkable, however, that 
although the apocryphal writings do not go essentially beyond the 
descriptions of Wisdom in the Proverbs, in particular knowing no- 
thing of the appellation “ Word of God” (comp. Wisd. of Sol. vii. 
Jes. Sir. xxiv.), and at the utmost only presenting the personal ac- 
ceptation of Wisdom somewhat more distinctly than is done in the 
Old Testament ; yet in the Targums (the Chaldee translations of 
the Old Testament), which were in part written before Christ, and 
in the Cabbalistic writings, the personality of the Word of God ap- 
pears wrought into the most distinct form. This idea of the Word 
of God as a personality shews itself in them partly by the fact that, 
in many passages, they directly put min> -1 xyeva for mim, and 
partly by the circumstance that they understand “ Word of God” 
as identical with the Shechinah and the Messiah.* 

The term Shechinah designates the revelation of God in the 
entire fulness of his life and being ΣΤ this was considered as appear- 
ing in the Messiah, and in him necessarily understood as personal. 
How the Chaldee Paraphrasts arrived at this profound idea is not 
evident ; but we can scarcely err in conjecturing that the essential 
knowledge of God, as possessed by enlightened men among the 
Jews—which had been communicated, by way of tradition, from 
generation to generation—had descended to these persons; and 
therefore they were not the first who formed this idea, or even the 
only persons who at that time cherished it, but are merely to us the 
earliest who have definitely expressed it. For all the books of the 


* Comp. Onkelos on Numb. xxiii. 21: verbum Jehove adjuvat illos, et Schechina 
regis illorum est inter eos. Also Zohar, fol. 237, on Genesis xlix. 10: Nomen Schiloh 
(ἃ e. Messiz) hie scribitur pbsy(cum Jod et He), ut significet nomen supremum Sche- 
chinee. (Comp. Bertholdt Christol. Jud. p. 130, seq.) The kindred expressions and, 
mau, 198, 575. ΕΥ̓, also occur. Conversely, however, in Exodus xxxiii. 20, 23, Ere is 
used i in reference to the concealed, invisible God, while the part manifested (consequently 
the Son) is called why ‘this back.” In Isaiah Ixiii. 9, the Revealer of God is termed 
525 τ 5. The Cabbalists speak of a great and a small countenance of God, an open 
and’ a closed eye (comp. Tholuck, p. 50), in order to point out the relation eee the 
hidden and the revealed God. 

+ Bertholdt (loc. cit. pag. 120) very justly explains the name Shechinah thus: 
min? tap 59 tm ayy an The glory of God (57. sy) is also called among the 
Jewish authors ἘΔ 319 OF yee, which terms are derived from the Latin matrona 
and metator. The latter expression has been compared also with μετάθρονος, joint-ruler, 
a form, however, which never occurs in the Greek language. On the contrary, the prin- 
ciple was looked upon in God as feminine, and the term σοφέζα, mys also indicates this 
view. Seyffarth (p. 50) compares the σοφία, not with the Logos, ‘put with the πνεῦμα 
ἅγιον, who, however, as a distinct hypostasis, is not to be found in the Old Testament or 
in the Apocryphal Writings. 


304 Joun I. 1. 


Old Testament are much older than the Targums, and hence they 
contain the doctrine still more in the germ. There can be no doubt 
that the idea of the real, personal Word of God, was received through 
the same medium of tradition by Philo, in whose writings we find 
it in its highest point of development. (Comp. Grossmanni quees- 
tiones Philonez, Lips. 1829.4. The whole of the second division 
treats of the Logos of Philo, under all the relations in which 
this inquirer conceives of him.) Philo not only applies to him the 
terms familiar to all Jewish thinkers—oo¢ia, δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ, υἱὸς τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, wisdom, Glory of God, Son of God—but also, asa Platonic 
philosopher, adduces in comparison the Divine νοῦς, mind, by which 
Plato understood just that which in the Old Testament is termed 
mssh—as it were, God’s consciousness of himself, or the self-con- 
templation of the Divine being. 

According to the obscure declarations of Plato, it is uncertain 
whether he himself regarded this mind (νοῦς) as a personality ; but 
the profound knowledge of God attained by his lofty mind, renders 
it more than probable that he could not look upon the primal idea 
which the αὐτὸ ὄν, absolute existence, had of himself otherwise than 
as personal. 

Now, as the idea of the Divine Word was already in existence 
in the time of Christ, the question is—why was it that neither the 
Lord himself nor any of the apostles, except John, employed it, 
rather than why did John use it ? The expression Gage τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
Wisdom of God, indeed, occurs once (Luke xi. 49, compare the 
Comm. on the passage) in the discourses of Christ ; but the very 
fact that this occurs so seldom, and that the phrase λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, » 
Word of God, in reference to the personality of the Word, is not 
found at all—except in John’s writings—tends to shew that these 
terms were not abstained from accidentally. The following seems 
to me to be the reason of the circumstance. In the Old Tes- 
tament, express, positive statements respecting the personality 
of the wisdom of God were avoided, so long as the people of 
Israel were in danger of Polytheism. For a few individuals only, 
of deeper penetration, intimations concerning it were given; the 
Chaldee Paraphrasts and the later Cabbalists give us the result of 
their investigation ; but their writings—especially those of the latter 
—contain much spurious admixture, derived perhaps even from 
Christian influence, although probably from the Christian Gnosti- 
cism alone. After the Ε and at the time of Christ, circum- 
stances were completely changed. Rarely had ieee entirely 
turned from Polytheism ; yet they not unfrequently conceived 
the Divine essence (according to human nature’s universal con- 
ception of Deity) as a mere dead abstraction. This view would 
only be favoured by the use of σοφία or νοῦς, in that the very 


Joun I. 1. 305 


next step was simply to refer them to one among the many attri- 
butes of God. On the other hand, the terms ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, the 
Son of God, and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, the Son of Man, which Jesus 
customarily used when speaking of himself (comp. the Comm. Luke 
i. 35), express with perfect clearness the consciousness of personality 
in the Revealer of God. 

The use of the name “ Son of Man,” also, which is predominant 
in the discourses of Christ himself, led away from all idle refine- 
ments concerning the peculiar relation in the Divine essence between 
Father and Son ; while, on the other hand, it claimed of all the 
moral endeavour to resemble that pattern of humanity, which was 
exhibited in the Son. John certainly might have employed the 
term σοφία or νοῦς in his writings, and then he would have been 
quite intelligible to his readers ; but he preferred the expression 
λόγος, probably because in its signification of “ wnderstanding,” it 
was parallel with σοφία or νοῦς ; and further, in the sense of “ word” 
it embraced the idea wanting in the other term—viz., that the God 
who was hidden, shut up within himself, revealed himself in this 
Being, as the human spirit manifests itself in the internal or ex- 
ternal word. If we assume (and though this cannot be demon- 
strated, it cannot be proved untrue), that John was acquainted with 
the writings of Philo, and that those of his readers whom he had 
chiefly in view were fond of them, then we have an external reason 
for the use of this term ;* only, it cannot be admitted that John 
gained the zdea itself through any historical medium whatever ; 
even if he did receive some external notice of it, he obtained it first 
in reality through the illumination of the Spirit, by his own inward 
contemplation of the sublime relation. But in the choice of an ea- 
pression for the idea, he allows himself to be led by the necessities 
of those around him. 

If it be further inquired, whether this already existing idea— 
which John designates by the expression usually employed for it— 
was not further in a peculiar manner perfected by him; we find 
that this certainly is the case. For John has placed the idea of 
the Divine Word in such express connexion with the idea of the 
Messiah, that he points out the Messiah as the incarnate Logos 
himself. 

These two ideas do not, indeed, appear wholly without connexion, 
even among the Cabbalists, and probably such a combination may 
have existed among the older Jewish inquirers. It has, however, 
been falsely maintained to be identical with the union which John 


* Tholuck (Comm. zum Hebr-Briefe, p. 66, ff.) will not allow any connexion with 
Philo. Yet it seems to me very improbable that John should not have heard of Philo 
and his doctrines through the Theosophists in Asia Minor, even though he may not have 
read his works, 


Vou. II.—20 


306 Joun I. 1. 


teaches in the Prowmium of his Gospel.* For the Cabbalists use 
the expressions “‘ Word of God,” ‘‘ Shechinah,” “‘ Wisdom,” “ Glory 
of God,” synonymously with man, Messiah, particularly in the re- 
markable book Zohar (lustre, light), which is said to have been 
written by Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai, and belongs to the second 
century after Christ (comp. Tholuck’s work, Wichtige Stellen des 
Rabbinischen Buches Sohar., Berlin, 1824), But this by no means 
proves that they thought of the Logos as appearing in human per- 
sonality, and living on earth asa man. They in fact only employ 
the expressions “ Messiah” and “ Word” synonymously, without 
admitting a union of the Word with the human nature in the Mes- 
siah, as John teaches it. The higher Divine nature of the Messiah 
was not doubted by these profound thinkers, but just because they 
adhered to this, they overlooked his human nature ; just as the 
common popular opinion embraced the latter, and on this very 
account mistook his heavenly nature. How even the more pro- 
found Jews were in darkness as to the relation of the higher and the 
lower natures in the Messiah, is clearly shewn by those passages in 
Zohar where a twofold Messiah is taught. (Comp. Tholuck in the 
work above alluded to, p. 47, 73.) The higher element in the Mes- 
siah is here called ‘ the upper height;” the human “the lower 
height ;” but the two are conceived in separate personalities, the 
Divine, in the Messiah Ben David, the human, in the Messiah Ben 
Joseph. Those Jews, however, who were more spiritually inclined, 
seem to have conceived the phenomenon of a higher nature in the 
Messiah Ben David under a docetic form (comp. the passages in 
Bertholdt, page 92), for they ascribe to the Messiah a new essence 
(men Ay). 

The same thing presents itself in Philo. Although with this 
Theosophist, the doctrine of the Logos forms the centre of his sys- 
tem, yet the idea of a personal Messiah is altogether wanting. It 
is refined into a purely ideal agency of the Logos, which he very 
frequently terms, as the ideal and pattern of man, ὁ ἀληθὴς or ἀληθινὸς 
ἄνθρωπος, ὁ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἄνθρωπος, the true man, and even simply 
ἄνθρωπος, man, (Comp. Grossmann, loc, cit. p. 40). Seyffarth is of 
opinion (loc. cit. p. 68) that Philo teaches an incarnation of the 
Logos. This view, however, rests upon misunderstood passages 
(comp. Philon. Opp. edit. Pfeiffer, vol. iv. p. 22, 268), which, when 
rightly interpreted, state exactly the contrary. In opposition to 
this idealistic error, as well as to the materialistic notion of the Jews 
generally, that the Messiah will only be an extraordinary man, John 


* So Kuinoel (in his Kinleitung zum Johannes p. 73), Bertholdt Christol. p. 129, seq. 
aud others. Bertholdt even speaks (loc. cit.) of a unio personalis between the Logos and 
the Messiah, which was taught by the Cabbalistic book Zohar. On this, however, we 
eannot enlarge. 


Joun 1. 1, 2. 307 


sets forth his doctrine—the true media via—of a union of the Divine 
with the truly human, as expressed by the incarnation of the Word 
(John i. 14). 

According to this historical statement respecting the use of the 
term Logos, those notions of it which altogether disregard its his- 
torical significancy are self refuted. ΤῸ this class belongs, in the 
first place, the opinion maintained in recent times by Ernesti and 
Tittman, which puts ὁ λόγος for ὁ λεγόμενος in the signification of 
“The Promised,” = ὁ ἐπαγγελλόμενος, thus denoting the Messiah 
announced by the prophets. In that case, however, the Messiah as 
such must, according to ver. 1, be regarded as in God from eternity ; 
a doctrine at variance with the only true signification of the word, 
which points to the union of the Divine and the human, Referred 
merely to the Divine nature of the Messiah, the idea certainly has 
truth ; but the designation ‘‘ The Promised” cannot merely refer to 
the Divine nature of the Messiah ; it must connect «with this his 
humanity, because the promise of him is an announcement of his 
coming to men as man. 

Not quite on a level with this unhistorical view is another, 
which explains λόγος by ὁ λέγων, one who communicates, pro- 
mulgates. In the earliest period Origen and Epiphanius, in more 
more modern times, Déderlein, Storr, and others, have propounded 
this opinion. 

The substitution of the absolute for the concrete creates no ob- 
jection to this hypothesis: its incorrectness lies in the single fact, that, 
by this substitution, Christ is made but one among many, and that 
merely under the general notion of teacher. Had he been con- 
templated as the organ of all information concerning Divine things, 
as the teacher of all teachers, the interpretation might, perhaps, 
be tenable; and it was in this way precisely the Fathers appre- 
hended it. Nevertheless, even to this latter and more suitable 
mode of understanding the idea, there is this objection, viz., 
that in the expression ὁ λόγος, the Lather is considered as the 
speaker (λέγων), as Philo customarily expresses himself. But if 
λόγος be resolved into ὁ λέγων, the relation between the Father and 
Son, pointed out by the expression selected, is set aside. More re- 
cent interpreters have therefore correctly conceived that we ought 
only to retain the historical aspect of the name which John found 
adapted to indicate his view. 

Ver, 1, 2.—Concerning this Logos—who, according to the tes- 
timony of history, must be viewed as identical with the essential 
Wisdom, or the Son of God—John tells us, in the first place, he 
was in the beginning (ἣν ἐν ἀρχῇ). The ἦν, was, which is employed 

* Seyflarth (p. 52) terms the description of the Logos here (verses 1 and 2), “his rep- 
resentation in a state of quiescence.” The idea is correct, but the expression which he has 


308 Joun I. 1, 2. 


without change in verses 1 and 2, here designates—by way of an- 
tithesis to ἐγένετο, became, ver. 8 (the term used in reference to what 
is created)—the enduring, timeless existence of the eternal present. 
(John viii. 58, it is peewee said ““ before Abraham became, I 
am” (πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγώ εἰμι), Liicke strangely denies 
this distinction between the Seyn [“‘ to be”] and the Werden [‘to 
become,” “‘ to be made] ; yet it is common to all languages. Ἦν, 
was, may indeed be often used in application to created things, as 
well as ἐγένετο, became, but with respect to that which is eternal, 
ἐγένετο is utterly inapplicable, because in this case the fact of 
‘“‘ being” is not, as in the former, the result of the process of “ be- 
coming.” 

Thus the precise idea of the ἀρχή, beginning, is at once deter- 
mined. The customary comparison of mx, in the beginning, 
(Gen. i. 1) with this passage seems to me inappropriate, because it 
refers to that which is created, whereas our passage has respect to 
the eternal being of the Son in the bosom of the Father. Hence 
the ἐν ἀρχῇ, in the beginning, is not to be understood as meaning 
‘“‘in the beginning of the creation,” but, in the original beginning, 
4. e., from eternity. A parallel is found in John xvii. 5, where the 
Lord himself speaks of his existence with the Father, πρὸ τοῦ τὸν 
κόσμον εἶναι, before the world was.* Here, therefore, even the phrase 
ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, from the beginning, could not be employed, although it 
may be used synonymously with ἐν ἀρχῇ, when a limited peyviod is 
spoken of, to which something is referred, or from which something 
is to be reckoned.f Here no limit is supposed ; on the contrary, all 
period of commencement which would lead to previous nonentity is 
denied. This also sufficiently refutes the Socinian acceptation of 
the passage, ‘from the beginning of Christianity ;” for if, as in 
Acts xi. 15, according to the connexion, ἐν ἀρχῇ may have this sig- 
nification, it does not follow that there is the least ground for such 
an interpretation in another passage, where the connexion indicates 
a different dey7.t 


selected is not entirely appropriate, since life (ζωῇ), as the highest motion, does away with 
quiescence. The ancient term λόγος ἐνδιάθετος is better; here the Logos is conceived of, 
in the first place, as God inwardly manifesting himself. The second act of Divine en- 
ergy is the revelation of God outwardly (ver. 3), to the world of creatures. 

* The expression is well interpreted by the passage, Prov. viii. 23, which treats of the 
Divine wisdom. IIpd τοῦ αἰῶνος is quite equivalent to the Johannine ἐν ἀρχῇ: 

+ In the passages 1 Johni. 1, ii. 13, 14, dx’ ἀρχῆς appears equal to ἐν ἀρχῇ. There, 
however, the expression pemieg that he was from the beginning, throughout the whole 
development of the creation. Meanwhile, in Sirach xxiv. 9, dm’ ἀρχῆς certainly stands = 
ἐν ἀρχῇ. : 

1 Cyril and others, as also in the most recent times, Marheinecke (Dogm. p. 134), un- 
derstand dpy7 as the Father, the Original; the view is profound, but exegetically unten- 
able. In the New Testament Christ is called ὠρχή (Rev. iii. 14), and so are, as is known, 
not unfrequently angels, but never the Father. Philo (comp. Grossman loc. cit. p. 51) 
and the Gnostics also called the Logos ἀρχή, but the Father προαρχῆ. 


Joun I. 1, 2. 309 


With this first statement of the timeless existence of the Logos, 
a second is now connected, viz., ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, he was with God. 
In the parallel, John xvii. 5, it is said of the glory (δόξα) of the 
Son, ἣν εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρά σοι, which I had with thee, 
ete. (John vi. 46, παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὦ. 6., from God.) Now the prep- 
ositions πρός with the accusative, and παρά with the dative, asso- 
ciated with words of rest, mean “near by,” ‘‘ beside.” This idea, 
therefore, expresses the close connexion of the Logos with God, and 
at the same time also, the hypostatical distinction between the Son 
and the Father. (Comp. Prov. viii. 22, 30; Sirach xxiv. 10.) 
This is shewn particularly by the last clause, καὶ Θεὸς ἣν ὁ λόγος, 
and the Word was God. Were it possible so to misunderstand 
this as to suppose that there is no distinction between the Logos 
and God, and that—according to the Sabellian theory—Father and 
Son are only different modes of operation of the same God, this 
mistake is obviated by the previous clause. And to exhibit in the 
most forcible manner this intimate oneness, and yet distinction, 
between the Father and the Son, the Evangelist, ver. 2, repeats the 
statement. The oneness of the Father and the Son lies in the es- 
sence, the distinction in the personality, ἱ. e., in the consciousness, 
which is the characteristic of personality, and with which duality is 
necessarily associated. 

In the last words, on account of the absence of the article, 
Θεός, God, itself is doubtless a predicate. Tholuck, following 
Erasmus, justly observes that here the article is wanting, be- 
cause the Deity is pointed out as substance, not as subject. How- 
ever, the question is, whether the presence or absence of the 
article is to be understood as indicating a difference in the signifi- 
cation of Θεός. Philo calls the Logos Θεός, God, but δεύτερος Θεός, a 
second God (Opp. 1. 82, 11, 625), and in another place (i. 683) he 
says: εἰ δεῖ τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, μεθόριός τις Θεοῦ φύσις καὶ ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ 
μέν ἐλάττων, ἀνθρώπου δὲ κρείττων. Origen conceived of the Logos 
similarly (and in accordance with the Arian party), as a peculiar 
being, standing midway between God and creatures, who, on account 
of his relation to the supreme God, may indeed be termed Θεός but 
not ὁ Θεός. Now, the mere term Θεός affords no proof that this 
view is incorrect, since it is also employed in. a wider sense, like 
Elohim in the Old Testament. (Comp. John x. 34.) But the dis- 
tinction made between Θεός, with and withont the article, is at any 

* To say the truth, there is a certain nature intermediate between God and man, infertor 
to the former, but superior to man. On account also of this view, Philo in many passages 
ealls the Logos ὑπηρέτης or dxaddc, ὃ, 6., ἀκολουθὸς Θεοῦ, a servant or follower of God— 
terms which the New Testament never employs with reference to the Son in his heay- 
enly nature, YetChrist iscalled, Heb. iii. 1, ἀπόστολος, commissioned, an expression with 


which Philo’s terms are quite parallel. The Old Testament often denominates the Messiah 
nim tay, Servant of Jehovah, with which the Greek παῖς, in the sense of δοῦλος, corresponds. 


310 ᾿ Joun I. 3. 


rate arbitrary, and not sustained by the New Testament, as is shewn 
by verses 6, 13, and 18 in this first chapter ; while the idea of the 
Logos as an intermediate being, between God and creatures, is com- 
pletely refuted by all those passages which ascribe to the Son equal 
honour and equal qualities with the Father. This, combined with 
the definite doctrine of the unity of God, affords a more profound 
idea of the relation of the Son to the Father, viz., that the Son is 
not a sublime creature brought forth at the first by the Father, but 
is the self-manifestation of the Father to himself as λόγος ἐνδιάθετος 
—outwardly from himself, as λόγος προφορικός. ‘The self-manifesta- 
tion of the Father, however, can be nothing less than the pure, 
perfect image of himself. The perfect God forms a perfect concep- 
tion of himself, his conception is essence, and his conception of 
himself is an essence like to himself.* Thus the unity of God and 
the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son stand upon an 
equally firm footing ; only that according to this view, the person- 
ality of the Son may appear exposed to Sabellian error. If, however, 
we do but abandon our conceptions of our isolated human individual- 
ity —which indeed are inapplicable to the Divine personality of the 
Son, and were always kept at a distance from it by the orthodox 
teachers of the Church—it then becomes manifest, as we have 
already remarked, that the perfect self-manifestation of God (God 
contemplated not as an abstraction, but as a living being), can only 
be brought forth, spirit from spirit, essence from essence, and accord- 
ingly along with his spiritual essence are given also all those pecu- 
liarities which, in the want of a word answering to the sublimity of 
the relation, we are accustomed to designate by the inadequate term 
Person.} . 

The Socinian conjectural reading, Θεοῦ ἣν ὁ λόγος, the word was 
of God, is self-condemned, and needs only to be known to be reject- 
ed. On the other hand, the punctuation after ἦν, so as to read ὁ 
λόγος οὗτος κ. τ. λ. together with ver. 2, gives the same sense as the 
ordinary reading, if we supply ὁ λόγος, as subject, from what pre- 
eedes, However, it is destitute of all critical authority. 

Ver. 3.—To the description of the essence of the Logos is attached 
the explanation of his relation to the world, and that first of all in 
so far as it came forth pure from the hand of God. As created, the 


* Melancthon justly says: Logos est imago cogitatione patris genita. Mens humana 
pingit imaginem rei cogitatz, sed nos non transfundimus essentiam in illas imagines. 
At Pater aternus sese intuens gignit cogitationem sui, quee est imago ipsius, non evan- 
escens ut nostree imagines, sed subsistens communicata ipsius essentia. (Comp. Tholuck, 
p. 55, note 2, the fifth edition, which is always cited in this work.) 

+ Tholuck (p. 55, note 1) likewise remarks, “ if the term Person be understood in the 
sense of individual, it is somewhat dubious, and the scholastic phrase: una substantia 
in tribus subsistentiis (in the German Selbheit ‘ self’) might be preferable.” 

7 In the logical sense, as distinguished from predicate-—Tr. 


Joun I. 3. 311 


world never possesses being (εἶναι) ; it bears the character of that 
which is produced (γίνεσθαι). The πάντα, all things, is, like τὰ πάντα 
or τὸ πᾶν, to be understoood as meaning the universe ; every limita | 
tion of the expression to the spiritual creation called forth in man 
by Christ, as the Socinians maintain, is contrary to the meaning of 
the author, as the second clause distinctly shews ; while, at the 
same time, it is opposed to the doctrine which pervades the apocry- 
phal writings and the New Testament, viz., that God created the 
world by means of the Wisdom or the Son (comp. Prov viii. ; Si- 
rach xxiv.; Wisd. of Sol. viii.; Colossians i. 16; Heb. i. 2, with 
such passages as Rom. xi. 86 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Ephes. iv. 6). We 
may here compare the expression e-tx v8) Gen. i. 3, since accord- 
ing to this the creative Word of God is the Logos himself. At the 
same time the precise wsus loguendi of Scripture is not to be over- 
looked, for it is constantly said, the Father created the world 
through (διά) the Son,” or “the world is from (ἐμ), by (ὑπό) the 
Father, through the Son ;” never “ Christ created the world.” This 
uniformly established mode of expression proceeds from the correct 
contemplation of the relation of the Son to the Father, according 
to which the Son is the self-manifesting God himself. God there- 
fore constantly works only through the Son, the Son never works 
independently, as if detached from the Father ; his work is the 
Divine will itself in action, and in God there is no will except the 
Son. This was very justly acknowledged by the orthodox Fathers, 
in their rejection of the semi-Arian Formula, ‘‘the Son was be- 
gotten by an act of God’s will ;” the Son is the Father’s will itself. 
Not trom a mere habit of repeating negatively the sentiments 
before expressed positively, but with the distinct purpose of carry- 
ing the thought further, and precisely defining the relation of the 
Logos to the world, the Evangelist adds: καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο ᾿ 
οὐδὲ ἕν, ὃ γέγονεν, and without him was not any thing made that 
was made, Liicke, in the second edition, and de Wette, agree with 
me in the opinion that these words effectually exclude the Gnostic 
doctrine of an uncreated ὕλη, matter. Tholuck, however, on the 
contrary, remarks, that the words must in that case have read: καὶ 
οὐδὲ Ev ἐστιν, ὃ μὴ γέγονεν dv’ αὐτοῦ, and there is nothing which was 
not made by him, for, as the words now run, the Gnostics might 
have said that matter is eternal. John certainly might have — 
so expressed himself; but the words of our text likewise indi- 
cate the thought with sufficient clearness, For John regards evil 
in its individual phenomena, and of these he affirms that none 
of them exists without the Logos: and thus the existence of 
an independent power beside God is perfectly excluded. For 
the fountain of everything false in the theosophic Cosmogonies, 
which were framed up to John’s time, was the doctrine of an 


312 Joun I, 4. 


uncreated matter (ὕλη), aside from God, as the source of evil. 
This fundamental error John here combats, and only such a 
supposition renders the form of the passage intelligible. Al? 
except God is designated as made, and is conceived as made 
through the Logos, and thus every doctrine of a second self-existent 
essence is entirely rejected ; this reference of the passage also admi- 
rably suits the polemic purpose of John, and cannot therefore be 
done away. J. G. Miiller (vom. Gl. der Chr. vol. i. p. 393) decides 
for the old Alexandrine punctuation, maintained also by Erasmus, 
Griesbach, and Koppe, according to which ὃ γέγονεν should be con- 
nected with ἐν αὐτῷ, so as to give the.sense: “that which was 
made by him was life.” But then life would be attributed to 
the created rather than to the Creator, to say nothing of the unsuit- 
ableness of the context καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἣν K. τ. λ.., if so understood. And 
the sentiment too is insipid, “ that through him that which is liv- 
ing was made, not that which is dead.” 

Ver. 4.—From the creation in general, the description singles 
out asingle part, viz., the world of mankind, and states the rela- 
tion of the Logos to it. Rieger refers ver. 4 to the original con- 
dition of man in Paradise, and therefore takes ἦν, was, decidedly as 
the imperfect tense. Ver. 5 would then describe the Fall, and the 
consequent position of mankind, and ver. 6, ff., the restoring agency of 
God in its consummation, and in its course of development up to this 
consummation. The Logos, however, not merely was the light of men 
in Paradise, but is so always. Verse 5 does not refer to the origin of 
darkness, but presupposes its existence. The Evangelist avoids en- 
tering minutely into the origin of evil, since it would have led him 
away from the practical ground. 

The first subjects of discourse here are the ideas ζωή," life, and 
φῶς, light, which are ascribed to the Logos as permanent designa- 
tions of his entity. It is not needful to read ἔστι for ἦν, as the im- 
perfect tense itself would point out enduring presence. Nor is it 
allowable to coin a signification tor the ἐν, iz, (viz., as = διά, and 
standing for 3); on the contrary, the clause ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, in 
him was life, is quite parallel with the formula ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ἡ ζωή, 
the Word is the life, or λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, the Word of life (1 John i. 
1). (Comp. the passages, John ν. 26, 1 John v. 11, with John xi. 
25, xiv. 6, in which the two modes of expression are interchanged.) 
For the sense of the expression is, that the Logos carries life in 
himself zndependently ; as Philo says, he is the πηγὴ τῆς ζωῆς, foun- 
tain of life. (Comp. Psalm xxxvi. 9, where the LXX. have παρὰ 
σοὶ πηγὴ ζωῆς. ‘True, this applies in the highest sense to the Father 
(John ν. 26, ὥσπερ 6 πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, as the father hath life 


* Comp. my treatise: de notione vocis ζωή in libris N. Test. Pfingstprogramm, 1828, 
Printed in my Opuse. Theol. p. 98, sqq. 


Joun I. 4. 313 


- 


in himself), but the Father has given this also, as everything else, 
to the Son, to be a self-subsisting Fountain of Life (οὕτως ἔδωκε καὶ 
τῷ υἱῷ ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ.) 

As to the idea of ζωή, life, itself, it belongs to the most profound 
things in the profound language of John.* For it designates the 
only real absolute being (the ὄντως εἶναι) of Deity, in contrast with 
the relative existence of the creature. The latter, contemplated as 
in isolation from God, is in θάνατος, death, and only has its life in 
connexion with God, the fountain of life.} God is therefore ὁ μόνος 
ἔχων τὴν ἀθανασίαν, he who alone has immortality (1 Tim. vi. 
16) ;{ creatures receive it only through conjunction with him ; and 
PB asuitich as God communicates it to them through the Logos, Christ 
himself is called our life (Coloss. ili. 4), For as he contains the life 
in himself (ὁ ζῶν, Rev. i. 18), so also he imparts it (ὁ ζωοποιῶν). 
Hence the thought stands in the following connexion with ver. 3: 
* All was made through him, for in him resides the all-producing, 
creative power.” The signification ‘‘ happiness,’ which has fre- 
quently been ascribed to life, is only a secondary one ; for the 
possession in himself of Divine, absolute being, certainly includes 
happiness for the creature ; but the notion of “life” in itself com- 
prehends more than merely the sense of well-being, which is the 
leading idea in the expression “Κ΄ happiness.” 

The life, contemplated in its victory over death, which strives 
against life, is called in John ἀνάστασις, resurrection. As, there- 
fore, Christ is the life itself, so he is also the absolute resurrection, 
(Comp. John xi. 25.) 

The second important idea in ver. 4 is φῶς, light. By this 
term, the essence of the Logos is, as it were, substantially ex- 
pressed. The substance of the Divine Being is inexpressible ; the 
only thing that nature suggests as suitable for comparison with it is 
Light.§¢ No people, no language, no age, has either conceived or 

* Compare Seyffarth, loc. cit. p. 101, ff 

+ In order to a thorough apprehension of the idea of ζωή, it is important to consider 
the term θώνατος in its biblical usage. In reference to creatures, it has a twofold sense. 
Ii commonly signifies the becoming separate of things belonging together; either of the 
soul and body in physical death, or of the spirit and the soul in the inward, spiritual, or 
eternal death. But θάνατος also designates that which separates, the power that produces 
death. (Rev. xx. 14.) While, therefore, death is the unharmonizing force which checks 
individual life in its development, and destroys it, the life appears as the harmonious, 
strengthening power, which renders life all congenial. Thus, as life stands parallel with 
good, so does death with evil. The former, only, is the eternal and absolute; the latter, 
like evil, is not anything substantial, still less anything absolute, but yet something real— 
viz., the destruction of the proper relation, and the cause itself of this destruction. 

{ Orig. in Joan. t. 11, Opp. vol. iv. p. 71, very justly says: τὸ κυρίως ζῇν παρὰ μόνῳ 
κυρίῳ τυγχάνει. 

5. As the Father, so also the Son, is light; in his brightness we behold the invisible 


Father. Comp. Ps. xxxvi. 9, "ae=meny JARB LXX., ἐν τῷ φωτί σου ὀψόμεθα φῶς 
Philo also finely expresses this idea of the perceptibility of the Light by means of itself 


314 ‘ Joun L. δ. 


represented the Deity otherwise than as full of light. Visible light 
is the vivifying, fructifying, preserving principle in the physical 
world ; just so the φῶς νοητόν, intellectual light, is the living prin- 
ciple of the spiritual world. Thus God, the first cause ofall being, 
is termed φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον, dwelling in light unapproachable (1 
Tim. vi. 16), and Christ declares: ἐγώ εἶμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου, I 
am the light of the world (John viii. 12, ix. δ). Similarly in Wisd. 
of Solomon vii. the σοφία, wisdom, 18 called, ver. 26, ἀπαύγασμα φωτὸς 
ἀϊδίου, radiance of eternal light; ver. 29, Hille εὐπρεπεστέρα. Philo 
also very frequently compares the Logos ‘with the light or the sua 
(Mal. iv. 2) ; and also with the Tae: (Grossmann, loc. cit. p. 39), 
since the excessive abundance of light passes over again to the in- 
visible (1 Tim. vi. 16). Now the Logos, the Light of all beings, is 
here contemplated especially in relation to men, to whose relations 
the whole following description has reference. As the Saviour as- 
cribes to man, even after the Fall, an inward light (Luke xi. 35), 
and, ver. 9, the Logos appears as the constant dispenser of spiritual 
light to men ; so here he is called the original Bringer of light, the 
φωσφόρος (2 Pet. i. 19), to their race. 

This is pointed out by the ἦν, was, in antithesis with the follow- 
ing φαίνει, shines (ver. 5). The resolution of the profound idea of 
the licht into the general notion of a teacher is to be rejected, as de- 
stroying all its point. The function of the teacher presupposes in 
the learner a spiritual susceptibility to instruction, which the former 
only puts in motion ; but the communication of the light 15 the fill- 
ing of human nature with a higher spiritual principle, and is, there- 
fore, something far more internal and profound. This, however, 
may be allowed—that while life refers more to power, light has 
more reference to knowledge; yet the knowledge is to be under- 
stood as profoundly internal, an essential possession of that which 
is known. 

Ver. 5.—In opposition to the Logos, as the Diffuser of Divine 
light, we have the σκοτία, darkness, and while up to this point the 
Logos has been presented to view as the Creator of the originally 
pure creation, he now appears as the Jtestorer of the fallen. With 
respect to the origin of the darkness, nothing precise is said. The 
Logos is only styled its illuminator, the banisher of all darkness, 
Darkness, therefore (σκότος or σκοτία), designates the entire existence 
of the creature turned away from God, and consequently fallen into 
the power of death, having through sin lost the Divine light ; dark- 


in the following manner: τὸν αἰσθητὸν τοῦτον ἥλιον, μὴ ἑτέρῳ τινὶ θεωροῦμεν ἣ ἡλίῳ ; τὰ 
δὲ ἄστρα py τισιν ἄλλοις ἣ ἄστροις θεωροῦμεν ; καὶ συνολῶς τὸ φῶς, dp’ οὐ φωτὶ βλέπεται ; 
τὺν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ ὁ Bros, ἑαυτοῦ φέγγος Ov, δι’ αὑτοῦ et ov (i. 6., λόγου) θεωρεῖται, 
μηδενὸς ἄλλου συνεργοῦντος ἦ δυναμένου συνεργῆσαι πρὸς τὴν εἰλικρινῆ κατώληψιν τῆς 
ὑπαοζξεως αὐτοῦ, 


JouNn I. 6-8. 315 


ness, therefore, is nothing substantial, as light, but something 
merely negative, the absence of the light, which, however, presents 
itself only in concrete forms, and therein has its positive aspect. 
On this account it is absolutely denied of God and of the Divine 
world, (1 John 1. 5, Θεὸς φῶς ἐστι Kat σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν obde- 
μία.) Now, the shining (φαίνει) is not to be referred merely to the 
work of the incarnate Logos ; rather, the expression indicates com- 
prehensively the influence of the world of light and of its Sovereign, 
in all its forms of manifestation, upon the darkness. The rela- 
tion of the darkness, however, to these influences of the light, was, 
that it did not admit the light, and consequently was not illumin- 
ated by its power. (Κατέλαβεν is closely allied to παρέλαβον, ver. 11, 
and to ἔλαβον, ver. 12.) This statement is, of course, to be under- 
stood, like ver. 10, 11, only of the great majority, of whom it is said: 
ἠγάπησαν μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος, ἢ τὸ φῶς, they loved the darkness, etc. 
(John ii. 19) ; for there were always some children of light who 
received it deeply into their hearts. 

The several forms in which the light revealed itself are more 
precisely described in ver. 10, ff, and John v. 33 is, as it were, a 
further commentary on these verses. 

Ver. 6-8.—After this mention of the earliest general influence 
of the Logos upon humanity, in its state of exposure to the influ- 
ence of darkness, the representation proceeds. God sent John the 
Baptist as witness of the Light, which was about to manifest itself 
in a new and peculiar manner to the world. John merely, as the 
greatest and last prophet of the Old Testament, is put for them all ; 
the whole of the Old Testament, with its line of prophets, was a 
testimony (μαρτυρία) to the Light. This testifying does not involve 
the idea of instruction or communicating, but only that of corrobo- 
ration, solemn declaration, and this not merely outward, but inter- 
nal also. The prophets were, so to speak, the first beams of the ap- 
proaching Sun, and such also was John. He himself was incapable 
of communicating to the sinful world a higher life ; but he knew 
that there was a fountain of such life, and that it was about to 
pour forth its fulness into the poverty of the human heart. These 
words plainly have a polemic direction against an exaggerated esti- 
mation of John. The term ἄνθρωπος, stands in opposition to 
the predicates of the λόγος, and ἐγένετο to ἦν. Ver. 8, John is care- 
fully distinguished from the light, but with reference to what pre- 
cedes, he is designated as a man who had experienced in himself 
the influence of the light of the Logos. Accordingly (John v. 85) 
he is called λύχνος ὁ φαίνων, the shining lamp, and the character 
of his work is thus described: that through him, ver. 7, refer- 
ring to John) al/ men might believe in the coming Light. (Accord- 
ing to ver, 12, πιστεύσωσι may be completed by εἰς τὸ ὄνομα at τοῦ.) 


316 Joun I, 9. 


Ver. 9.—Next follows, in a very simple manner, the announce- 
ment of the Divine decree, that the true Light was to come into the 
world, viz. in personal manifestation. The epithet ἀληθίνος, true, 
contrasts the Logos, as the original Light, with the other derived 
lights (James i. 17). John frequently uses the term (iv. 23, vi, 32, 
xv. 1) to express the sentiment that the earthly was only the intima- 
tion of the heavenly, the latter the essence of the former. Hence it 
stands in antithesis, not to the false, for the Baptist was no false 
light but only to the relative, the derived. (In such passages as 
John xvii. 3, it appears used as equivalent to ἀληθής. But com- 
pare the exposition of the passage.) Upon this rests the more 
profound conception of the figurative language of the Bible. It 
consists not in a transfer of earthly to Divine relations : but rather 
men of God, contemplating the things Divine and true (the ἀληθινά), 
sought, for their expression, the earthly copies of the heavenly. 

With respect to the construction, as Liicke, Tholuck, and all 
recent expositors acknowledge, ἐρχόμενον is not to be connected with 
ἄνθρωπον, for this would occasion a pleonasm,* since a// men must 
come into the world, 7. e., must be born: but it is to be united with 
ἣν. The participle ἐρχόμενον is then to be taken in a future sense : 
“‘ The light was about to come into the world.” Here, however, in 
the first place, we must determine the meaning of κόσμος, world, 
and then fix the sense of ἔρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσμον, to come into the world, 
accordingly. The world (κόσμος) means, first, the material world 
with all its creatures, in so far as it is created and disposed by God. 
So John xvii. 5, 24, frequently in the phrase πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἷναι, 
and the like. Secondly, it embraces, by way of synecdoche, only 
men, as the most essential creatures of the universe, 6. g. John 11], 
16, οὕτω ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, V1. 33, ἄρτος ζωὴν διδοὺς TH κόσμῳ. 
Finally (and this is the prevailing signification of κόσμος in the lan- 
guage of John), it is employed in reference to the creation, so far 
as sin exists in it, and in this relation again it is applied by synech- 
doche to man alienated from God. Thus John xvii. 9, “I pray 
not for the world” (οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου ἐρωτῶ). (Comp. 1 John ii. 15, 
16.) Now “world” (κόσμος) is by no means identical with the 
darkness (σκότος) ; the darkness is that which is sinful in itself ; in 
the world there is only a mixture of darkness and light. But in so 
far as the darkness predominates in the αἰὼν οὗτος, so far the devil 
is called, in John’s phraseology, the ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου, ruler of the 
world (xii. 861). The customary expression for the incarnation and 


* The Hebrew pbiyn cm $5 may certainly be rendered “all men;” only in that 
case ἄνθρωπος cannot be added. 

+ Comp. Seyffarth loc. cit. p. 118. We need only mention the fundamental error in 
his development, viz., that he attributes to the Apostle the doctrine that matter is the seat 
of evil. 


ΘΌΗΝ 1. 10, 11, 8117 


personal ministry of the Logos is ἔρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσμον, coming into 
the world (iii. 19, vi. 14, ix. 39, xi. 27, xii. 46). It designates his 
descent from that blissful heavenly kingdom, which is pervaded by 
perfect harmony, into the mingled and discordant economy of time. 
The phrase thus expresses the self-abasement and self-sacrifice of the 
Logos. The Rabbins use sbiz2 xia, coming into the world, for 
“being born : but the Greek expression comprehends more ; it 
refers to the entire earthly manifestation of the Logos, and its im- 
port is not completed till the return of the glorified Redeemer to the 
heavenly world. Now the phrase ἦν ἐρχόμενον, viewed in itself, cer- 
tainly may stand as a periphrastic preterite, equal to ἦλθε, as Bleek 
and Liicke take it in the present instance. But in the introduction 
to the Procemium, we have already remarked that the connexion ren- 
ders this here inadmissible, since the participle is to be understood 
as applying to the future. Tholuck also remarks, in opposition to 
the above interpretation, that ἦν, where it is employed as a preter- 
ite, is not usually placed so far from its participle. 

Ver. 10, 11.—The Evangelist first glances back to the earlier 
general influence of the Logos in the world, “he had already been 
in the world, but had not been acknowledged by it,” (the ἦν refers 
to ver. 5, τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, and is to be taken as a pluper- 
fect), and then speaks more definitely of his personal manifestation, 
which, ver. 14, is described as incarnation. The words εἰς τὰ ἴδια 
ἦλθε, he came to his own, can only relate to the ministry of the in- 
carnate Logos, partly because the ἔρχεσθαι is not used of his previous 
mode of action, e. g. the Theophania, and partly because, ver. 12, 
13, regeneration is described, which in the Old Testament can only 
be regarded as typical, and not as actual, The great body of “ his 
own,” even upon this occasion, did not receive him (ver. 5); while 
those who did receive him* reaped rich blessings therefrom. The 
only difficulty here is presented by the words τὰ ἴδια (scil, δώματα) 
and οἱ ἴδιοι. To me it seems quite certain that the expression “his 

wn” forms an antithesis with world (ver. 10), which is also indicated 
by the antithesis between was and came. The latter term (κόσμος) 
here indicates the world of mankind at large ; his own (ἴδιοι) are a 
part of it, the Jews.f They are pointed out as kindred and nearest 

* The expression λαμβάνειν αὐτόν or μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ is equivalent to πιστεύειν 
These phrases illustrate the idea of πίστις ; they shew that the subjective condition of 
πίστις is susceptibility to the operations of the world of light. 

+ Bleck (loc. cit. p. 417) justly observes, that the coming of Christ into the world did 
indeed strictly commence with his incarnation; but his actual ministry first began at the 
baptism. Previously to that he still wrought, as it were, in the same manner as before 
the incarnation; and although he was in existence and present, John testified concerning 
him as to come. This interpretation favours the retention of the progression in the Proce- 
mium to ver. 14; for the words ὁ λύγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, the word became flesh, (ver. 14) must 


be placed in immediate connexion with the entire fullness of his work, which, how- 
ever, is not here so expressly exhibited. 


sis Joun 1. 12, 13. 


friends of the Logos, because (according to Sirach xxiv. 8) he had 
chosen Israel as his possession and residence. So Theophylact and 
others. Most recent expositors, however, understand creation in 
general as meant by ἴδια, and regard the ἴδιοι as denoting the world 
of mankind related to the Logos through the indwelling light; a 
- sense, certainly not inappropriate ; though if it be adopted, the 
gradation ceases, and verses 10, 11 become perfectly identical.* 

Ver. 12, 13.—It was, however, impossible for John to make these 
statements respecting the unbelief of the Jews without limitation, 
because a. community of Jewish Christians had nevertheless been 
formed. In the nature of the case, the appearance of the Eternal 
Word in the flesh could not be in vain and without effect, because 
that would suppose the final victory of evil over good, which is in 
the nature of the case impossible. If, therefore, apparently the 
few who did receive him bore no proportion to those who did 
not receive him, still the Divine energy imparted to these few 
involved a power that overcomes the world. The Logos, there- 
fore, brought with him for men a higher power (ἐξουσίαν, viz., to 
become children of God. (’Egovoia is understood as = τιμή in the 
sense of right, prerogative ; but the Scriptures contain no passage 
in which this signification is necessarily to be adopted. Passages 
such as John v. 27; 1 Macc. 1. 13, xi. 58, indeed admit it, but only 
so far as the prerogative depends upon a greater power communi- 
cated. It is the same here. It is intimated that a more copious 
communication of the Spirit took place under the New Testament, 
in order to the regeneration which belonged to it, than under the 
Old Testament. 

The expression τέκνα Θεοῦ, children of God, conveys the idea of 
being begotten of God in regeneration, rather than that of being 
dear and precious. (Comp. Comm. on Luke i. 35.) The condition 
of the reception of these higher vital powers appears as faith 
(πίστις), a susceptibility to the influences of the Logos in his own 
peculiar entity, so that ὄνομα, name, = Ὁ is employed to designate 
his being itself. (Consult upon πίστις, the remarks on Rom. iii. 
21.) Ver. 18 now adds a description of regenerated believers, in 
opposition to the γεννητοὶ γυναικῶν, born of woman. (Comp. the 
Comm. on Matth. xi. 11.) It is, however, worthy of remark that 
several of the Fathers, among whom are Ireneus and Tertullian, 
read the singular ὅς--ἐγεννήθη, so as to refer the words to the incar- 
nate Logos. The latter even asserts that the plural is an alteration 

* Olshausen’s interpretation is unquestionably the right one. The τὰ ἔδια͵ his own, is 
the Jewish nation regarded as the chosen possession of the Logos. The Old Testament 
abounds in recognitions of Israel as the chosen people, the inheritance of Jehovah, and 
this is among the numerous instances in which John identifies the incarnated Logos of 


the New Testament with the Jehovah of the Old. Further, Meyer is right in denying 
that δώματα is understood ; τὰ idia is what belonged to himself, not his own dwelling —[K. 


Joun I, 12, 13. 319 


of the Valentinians. At any rate, however, the reading is incorrect, 
for the following ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, the Logos became flesh, is not 
consistent with it. The sentiment of the passage is therefore sim- 
ply this: the offspring of God is far nobler than that of men. 
(Aiwa = σπέρμα, comp. Wisd. Sol. vii. 2.) The only particular de- 
scription given of human procreation is, that it is through desire 
(θέλημα = ἐπιθυμία, concupiscentia) of the woman and of the man ; 
and it is here we find the indication of the sinful and impure ele- 
ment that exists in human procreation and passes over to the 
children. The reference of ἐκ θελήματος to σάρξ also, and the parallel 
juxtaposition of οὐδὲ---οὐδὲ, appears to favour the acceptation of 
σάρξ, flesh, as here designating woman. True, Ephes. v. 29, and 
Jude ver, 7, do not appear to me adapted to prove that σάρξ means 
woman ; but such a proof we do not need, since, in order to inter- 
pret this passage, it is quite sufficient to refer to the view pervading 
the whole of Scripture, which represents the weak and sinful cha- 
racteristics of human nature as especially exhibited in woman (1 
Tim. 11. 9, ff)... The woman may therefore, in a special sense, be 
called σάρξ, and that were enough for the interpretation of this pas- 
sage.“ But only ovre—ovve expresses the distribution of a whole 
into its parts: hence σάρξ and ἀνήρ cannot be taken as subordinate 
parts of αἷμα, Connected by οὐδέ---οὐδέ, they define with more pre- 
cision the οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων. (Comp. Winer’s Gram. p. 456.) But 
how ὃ Liicke thinks that both are epexegetic, σάρξ arising from 
the Hebrew, and ὠνήρ from the Hellenic point of view. It may be 
said perhaps with more propriety that σάρξ opposes to the Divine the 
sinful, ἀνήρ merely the created. Tholuck’s rendering, “ also not 
from sensual pleasure, and just as little from the desire of man,” 
well agrees with this view. The expression é« Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν, were 
begotten of God, is more strictly determined by the term μονογενής, 
only begotten (ver. 14,18). The birth from God is accomplished 
by means of the First-born and the Holy Ghost ; in this birth the 
Logos communicates his essence to men ; the Logos alone is born 
immediately from the bosom of the Father. Hence, man in his 
natural condition is no child of God; he wears an alien form ; he 
must be changed into the Divine nature through the influence of 
Christ. (Comp. John viii, 44, iii. 6; 1 John iii. 10, v. 1; Gal. 111. 
26, 27.) It is, however, remarkable, that the holy Scripture ex- 


* Bleek’s mode of understanding the passage (loc. cit. p. 422) seems to me some- 
what obscure. This scholar thinks that σώρξ denotes that which is common to the race 
of men and of women—the sensual nature; but that ἀνήρ designates the conscious in 
opposition to the unconscious, the caps. The meaning would then be, “ born neither out 
of fleshly lust, nor out of the will of a man, in the general sense.” I confess, however, 
that I do not quite understand Bleek’s words, ‘so that man, even wiewed apart (?) from 
the sexual propensity and the sensual naturo generally, may, through his wil/, produce 
such sons.”(?) 


320 Joun 1. 14, 


presses the relation of the world, in its origin, to God, in no other 
phrase than πάντα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔστιν, all things are from God, since 
the ecclesiastical mode of expression, “ creation out of nothing,” 
does not occur in the biblical writings. (Comp. Heb. xi. 3.) The 
determining of the difference between the Divine agency through 
the Logos in the creation generally, and in regeneration particularly, 
belongs to the most difficult problems of theology. But the ewist- 
ence of the indifference is indicated in the usage of biblical lan- 
guage; since in reference to the Son and to regeneration only 
γεννᾶσθαι, to be born, is used, while, in reference to the world, 
γίνεσθαι, become, is employed, thus excluding the errors of pantheism, 

Ver. 14.—In this pregnant verse the c coming into the world” 
portrayed (v. 9) as approaching, which ν. 12 had designated as an 
entrance among his chosen people, is more fully portrayed in its 
peculiar character. ‘ This Logos (described ver. 1, ff.) now (in 
time) became (ἐγένετο in opposition to ἦν, ver. 1) flesh.” By the 
expression ‘ became flesh,” we are to understand, as the remark on 
ver. 10 has shewn, not merely the act of birth, but the ministry of 
the incarnate Logos connected therewith ; and this is confirmed by 
the sequel, since the subject of discourse is the manifestation of his 
grace and glory, the first complete disclosure of which was after the 
baptism. This expression is here selected with the utmost care ; 
for, in the first place, σάρξ, flesh, could not be exchanged for σῶμα, 
body, because body forms the antithesis of soul (ψυχή). But the 
Logos united himself not merely with the substance of the body, 
but also with a human soul; hence flesh (σάρξ) here denotes (= -w2) 
the whole human nature, in its weak and necessitous condition, and 
this he filled with the rich treasures of his Divine life. “‘ The Word 
became flesh, in order to raise the flesh to spirit.” John states this 
in opposition particularly to the docetic Gnostics, who explained 
the corporeal existence of Christ as a mere appearance, thinking it 
unworthy of him to take to himself human flesh, (σὰρξ ἀνθρωπίνη). 
He assumed it, however, with indeed the general infirmity (ἀσθένεια), 
on which his susceptibility of sorrow depended, yet without its sin 
(Rom. vii. 18. Comp. the remarks on John iii. 6). 

Just as little, moreover, could the Evangelist have said : ἐγένετο 
ἄνθρωπος, became a man, which would represent the Redeemer as 
one man amongst many, whilst he, as second Adam, represented 


* If even in our time the idea of the incarnation of God still appears so difficult, the 
principal reason is, that the fact itself is too much isolated. It is always the impulse of 
_ spirit to re-embody itself, for corporeity is the end of the work of God: in every phenome- 
non, an idea descends from the world of spirit, and embodies itself here below. It may 
therefore be said that all the nobler among men are rays of that sun which in Christ rose 
ow the firmament of humanity. In Abraham, Moses, and others, we already discover 
the coming Christ. 


Joun I. 14. 99] 


collective human nature in a sublime comprehensive personality.” In 
such a form of manifestation, continues John, he tabernacled among 
us (ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν). These words contain not merely a general 
reference to the designation of the Spirit’s dwelling as a σκήνωμα, 
tabernacle (2 Cor. v. 1-4; 2 Pet. i. 13; Wisdom ix. 15), but a 
special allusion to the name of the προβῦ, Shechinah (from 32% 
oxnvoov.)t (Comp. Rev. vii, 15, xxi. 3.) ‘With this also the δόξα, 
glory, of the Logos corresponds, which John describes with deep 
emotion from his own observation. (Comp. 1 Johni.1.) It is the 
Divine splendour, the constant attendant of the Shechinah and 
identical with it, visible to the spiritual eye, issuing from the Logos 
in wonderful grace and tenderness. (With regard to the 55. 1425 com- 
pare the baa on Johni. 1.) The apostles beheld this elory, as 
Liicke finely remarks, with a spiritual eye, and he who is illuminated 
by the Spirit perceives the same glory in him now. (Respecting 
the δόξα, glory, compare also the remarks on John 11. 11.) The 
Evangelist now associates the glory in its matchlessness, with the 
character of the Logos, as one who is incomparable—as the μονο-- 
γενής, only-begotten. (Tholuck justly po the ὡς with the 
Hebrew 2, veritatis, unsuitably so called ;t “such a δόξα as belongs 
to the μονογνής lode! ”).§ 

Here then for the first time in John the Logos is termed the 
Son of God. Seyffarth is mistaken (loc. cit. p. 38, 73) in supposing 
that the expression has reference merely to the incarnation of the 
Logos. Schleiermacher expresses himself in a similar manner (Glau- 
bensl. Pt. ii. p. 707): ‘the Divine alone in Christ could not be 
called Son of God, but this term always doubtless designates the 
entire Christ.” Ver. 18 shews the contrary, where the words ὧν εἰς 


* This is all that ecclesiastical doctrine says when it ascribes to the human nature of 
Christ the impersonalitas ; just as the immortalitas asserts his exemption only from the 
necessitas moriendi, not from the possibilitas, The Logos did not become a man but the 
man, just as Adam was not one man amongst many other men, but ¢he original man 
who included them all, who potentially carried in himself the whole race. To Adam, 
as well as to Christ, we may apply the expression of Augustine: in illo uno fuimus nos 
omnes. 

+ Tholuck does not deny this, but thinks that the expression may denote also the 
transitoriness of the abode of the Son of Godin lowly humanity. But since John is en- 
deavouring to depict the glory of Christ’s appearing, the reference to his humiliation is 
not-appropriate, Moreover his humanity is not a transient veil for his deity; on the con- 
trary, deity and humanity remain united in his person. 

¢ Meyer on John vii. calls the 5 veritatis an irrational chimera; the term certainly 
is unsuitable, but the peculiar use of the 5 which it is intended to denote, cannot be 
denied. Comp. Gesenius Gram. p. 846. 

§ Icannot but think that the primary reference in the parenthetical clause, ‘and we 
beheld his glory,” ete. (for it clearly 7s parenthetical), is to the transfiguration, where 
John pre-eminently saw the Saviour’s glory, and immediately and expressly the glory as 
of the only-begotten of the Father. See account of the transfiguration, Matth. xvii. 
1-6. Also 2 Pet. i. 16, 17.—[K. 

Vou. IL.—21 


822 Joun I, 14. 


τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, being in the bosom of the Father, are to be 
referred to the external existence of the Son with the Father. The 
difference between this expression and the term Logos consists in 
this—that the term Son of God points out more distinctly and ex- 
pressly the personality of the Word. In like manner Seyffarth 
is in error when he interprets the name Christ as denoting a 
quality of the Son of God. This term constantly refers to the 
union of the Divine and the human, a union in which the Divine 
principle hallows and anoints the human, (Compare the Comm. 
en Matth. i. 1.) Accordingly, if the expression ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
the Son of God, in John refers to the Divine nature of the 
Son (as to the few exceptions compare the Comm. on Luke i, 
35) then the epithet μονογενής, only-begotten, must likewise have 
a deeper meaning than the derived one of, specially dear. Ac- 
cording to ver. 18, the μονογενής is the only Son of God in 
the most essential and highest sense, as alone knowing the es- 
sence of the Father. Now it is involved in the nature of knowing, 
according to, the profound biblical meaning of the word, that the 
Deity can be known only by that which possesses a kindred nature. 
Hence, absolute knowledge of God presupposes absolute equality of 
nature. Hence also none but the regenerate in whom Christ lives, 
can truly know the Father; because no one knoweth the Father 
save the Son (comp. Matth. xi. 27). The same signification is in- 
dicated by the παρὰ πατρός, from the Father, in our passage, which 
is to be connected, not with the δόξαν, but with μονογενοῦς. In the 
language of Paul, instead of this we have πρωτότοκος, first-born 
(Rom. viii. 29; Coloss. i. 15,18; also Heb. i. 6), in which expression, 
however, the reference to the resurrection of Christ (πρωτότοκος é« 
τῶν νεκρῶν) occasionally prevails, (Coloss. 1. 18, as Rev. i. 5) and con- 
sequently the human nature is indicated. Finally, the quality of 
the glory is more exactly defined ;* it is termed πλήρης χάριτος Kat 
ἀληθείας, full of grace and of truth, (Πλήρη is a reading which resulted 
from the endeavour to connect the last words of the verse with 
δόξαν; but they refer to the λόγος.) Both ideas, that of χάρις, 
grace, and that of ὠλήθεια, truth,¢ belong to the class that is pecu- 
liar to John. It is remarkable that Seyffarth should overlook the 
former, since he, nevertheless, has received the kindred one of 
ἀγάπη, love.t With respect to the ἀγάπη, he very justly remarks 


* Rather of the λόγος. So Olshausen in the immediately following parenthesis.—[K. 

+ Both ideas frequently occur in connexion in the Old Testament also, especially in 
the Psalms (Ixxxix. 33, c. 5, exvii. 2.) 

+ The ancients did not rise above the Eros, 7. e., love desiring, and therefore arising 
from want: the Agape of Christianity, the love which purely bestows out of absolute 
fulness, they knew not. Comp. Plato’s Symposion, and with it the-ingenious remarks of 
Baur in the Mythol. vol. ii. sect. ii. p. 242, ff Concerning the difference between ἀγαπῶν 
and φιλεῖν, comp. Tittman, Syn. Part. i. p. 50. 


- Jomn I. 15. 323 


(p. 97, ff.), that it is to be considered as essentially in God (1 John 
iv. 8, 16), as the outpouring or immediate communication of his 
being ; and so Schleiermacher expresses himself. Χάρις, grace (= 
sh, 74) according to John’s idea, is the expression and activity of 
ἀγάπη, love, towards the abject—condescension towards the world of 
creatures. If they be contemplated at the same time as miserable 
through sin, then grace is termed compassion (ἔλεος). Accordingly, 
the Father shews towards the Son not grace but love, as it is said, 
John xvii. 24, ἠγάπησάς pe πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, thou lovedst me 
before the foundation of the world. But in the incarnate Logos, 
this condescending expression of love, the χάρις, was the prominent 
character. As to the second term, ἀλήθεια, truth, it stands in oppo- 
sition not only to ψεῦδος, falsehood, but also to ματαιότης, emptiness. 
According to the profound conception of John, the truth is the 
same as reality, substance, in opposition to shadow, 7. 6. emptiness, 
destitution of the Divine essence. This is the character of the 
sinful world (Rom. viii. 20); the truth (ἀλήθεια = mex), on the 
contrary, is God himself and his Logos (John xiv. 6). He does not 
have it.as something conceived to exist in connexion with him, and 
possessed by him; he és essentially the thing itself* Hence the 
communication of the truth through the Logos is not a communi- 
cation of certain correct opinions, but an impartation of the essence, 
the principle of all truth, the κοινωνία τοῦ πνεύματος, participation 
of the Spirit; and Seyffarth very justly observes (p. 96), that be- 
lievers, the begotten of God, are called by John ἡγιασμένοι ἐν τῇ 
ἀληθεῖᾳ, sanctified in the truth (John xvii. 19). Hence also, in the 
language of John, ἡ ἀλήθεια, the truth (with the article) is to be dis- 
tinguished from ἀλήθεια, truth (Comp. John vii, 44). Some truth 
is possessed even by the unholy ; it is only of the devilish that 
it is said, “ truth is not in him.” But the eternal alone is absolute 
truth, 

Ver. 15.—The testimony of John, intimated above (ver. 6), is 
now more precisely detailed, that it may be presented (i. 19. ff.) to 
the reader with the occasions that called it forth. Kpdgewv, exclaim, 
expresses the energetic character of the testimony. The phrase 6 
ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος, he that cometh after me, which in Matth. iii. 11 
is clear, is in this place somewhat obscure, on account of the 
ἔμπροσθέν μου and πρῶτός μου (not occurring in Matthew and Mark.) 
According to the synoptical Evangelists the sentiment is merely 
this : “he who, commences his work later than I, is higher in dig- 
nity.” Now, ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, has become (takes rank) before 
me, in our passage, can only be understood as relating to the Mes- 
sianic office of Christ, since γέγονε, has become, permits no refer- 


* The ancients also used ἀλήθεια in this absolute sense. Comp. Plutarch de Iside et 
Osir. 6.1, ὡς οὐδὲν ἀνθρώπῳ λαβεῖν μεῖζον, οὐ χαρίσασθαι Θεῷ σεμνότερον ἀληθείας 


324 Joun J. 16. 


ence to the eternal existence of the Son of God. Meyer, indeed, 
thinks that the difficulty is relieved, if we refer the expression te 
the ancient procession of the Logos from God, the λόγος προφορικός, 
But this procession itself is to be understood as the eternal action 
of God, and therefore cannot be designated by γένεσθαι, become. 

The concluding words, however, must be referred to the eternal 
existence of the Son, since the ὅτι, because, founds the previous 
proposition upon that which follows. (Tholuck and Liicke justly 
understand πρῶτος --- πρότερος, according to John xy. 18, 1 John iv. 
19.) The sense will then be this: ‘‘ He who begins his work later 
than I, has received a greater dignity, for he was eternally with the 
Father.” This correct knowledge of the Baptist may have been 
first awakened in him by careful reading of the Old Testament, and 
the use of exegetical tradition (both of which Tholuck makes prom- 
inent) ; but we can attribute his firm conviction respecting it only 
to the immediate operation of the Divine Spirit himself, who in- 
spired him. (Comp. John 1. 33.) 

Ver. 16.—This verse is surely not to be regarded as belonging 
to the discourse of the Baptist ; it is connected with ver. 14, and 
confirms what is there said respecting the contemplation of the glory 
of the Lord. Ver. 15 comes in between them parenthetically. 
Hence the reading «ai of the Text. Recept. certainly is incorrect, 
and ὅτι should be read instead. The change arose, perhaps, from 
the fact that the triple occurrence of ὅτε appeared strange to the 
transcribers. The Evangelist now speaks in the name of all believ- 
ers, and declares how the Redeemer has become to them a fountain 
of life. The fulness (πλήρωμα) ascribed to him, is (as Ephes, i. 23, 
Coloss. i. 19) the fulness of Divine being and essence which dwells 
in him. In distinction from him, entire humanity appears as the 
party receiving ; he alone is the giver, and the giver of grace (yépvc.) 
The meaning of the phrase χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος, grace for grace, is 
easy ; the more we receive from the streams of grace, the more we 
may yet receive ; as it is inexhaustible in the bestowment, the be- 
liever may take it without measure. But this use of dvré is without 
parallel in the New Testament. The passage in Theogn. (sentt. 
v. 344, ἀντ’ ἀνιῶν ἀνίας) is analogous, where ὠντί may be taken as 
“for” “over.” So also here— one expression of favour upon an- 
other.”* (Perhaps the Evangelist had in his mind the Hebrew 
wm ἘΣ 4, which exactly corresponds with our formula). To take 
ἀντί in the sense of “instead,” and thus refer the first χάρις to the 
Old Testament, the second to the New, is here wholly inadmissible. 
The Old Testament, in its intrinsic character, cannot be called 
χάρις, grace. 


* I think, thus: ἀντί, instead of, hence, in place of, succeeding to; thus, grace succeed. 
ing to grace == grace upon grace.—[K. 


Joun 1. 17, 18. 325 


Ver. 17.—This is shewn also by the following parallel between 
Law and Gospel ; the abundance of grace in Christ becomes mani- 
fest through the previous law, in which justice and a stern demand 
for holiness formed the prevailing characteristic. One thing only is 
singular, viz., that even the truth is traced to Christ alone as its 
source, whereas it appears assuredly that there was truth in the 
Old Testament also. Here, however, we must understand the truth 
in the absolute sense, which—as before observed—is the true being 
and essence itself. The Law demands, and thereby elicits the con- 
sciousness of sin, and the need of redemption ; it only typifies the 
reality ; the Gospel, on the contrary, actually imparts substantive 
life and power from above. (Compare Rom. vi. 14, 15, where ὑπὸ 
νόμον, under law, and ὑπὸ χάριν, under grace, form the antithesis.) 
Hence Paul terms the Old Testament σκιά, shadow, whilst he calls 
the New Testament σῶμα (substance), Coloss. 11. 17. De Wette 
seeks a subtle distinction between ἐδόθη and ἐγένετο, to wit, that in 
the former term lies the character of the positive, in the latter that 
of the historical, Ἐδόθη is selected purely on account of the fore- 
going νόμος, which admitted no other verb ; but ἐγένετο is here asso- 
ciated with χάρις and ἀλήθεια, because the discourse is not concerning 
the object in itself, but concerning its becoming manifest to men. 

Ver. 18—The concluding verse of the Procemium connects itself 
beatifully, on the one hand, with what immediately precedes, in that 
the Son alone could unfold the essential knowledge of God, as the Gos- 
pel communicates it ; while, on the other, this same thought com- 
pletes the entire Procemium, the Word wiiich was in the beginning 
with the Father, and in Christ became man, thus appearing as 
the Being who supplies all true knowledge of God, and procures 
eternal life. ‘To represent this work of the incarnate Logos is the 
design of the whole Gospel. The expression ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ 
πατρός, who was in the bosom of the Father, serves to point out the 
essential nature of the Son. Were we to admit an interchange of the 
prepositions εἰς and ἐν, the term κόλπος, bosom, might be taken (accord- 
ing to the analogy of Old Testament passages, such as Isaiah xlvi. 3, 
Ixvi. 9) as == th, the womb; so that the sense of the expression 
would be: ‘¢ The Son was (as λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) from eternity in the 
essence of the Father.” But Winer (N. T. Gramm. 8d edit. p. 350), 
rightly opposes, in the interpretation of this passage, also, such an 
interchange ; he understands κόλπος in the ordinary signification, 
laid ‘‘ towards the bosom.” It is further to be observed, that neither 
the LXX. nor the New Testament ever put κόλπος for omy; they 
always employ κοιλία or μήτρα for it. Consequently, the only idea 
remaining for this passage is that of the most intimate communion,t 

* With ἐγένετο, ἀνθρώποις is to be supplied. 
ἐ The choice of the expression ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατούς, who was in the bosom 


326 Joun I. 18. 


(according to the Latin in sinu, in gremio alicujus esse.) But even 
if, in accordance with this idea, the words in themselves might 
agree with Arian and Socinian representations of Christ, still we are 
necessarily Jed to take the thought in its profounder sense, that, viz., 
which refers the words to the eternal existence of the Son with the 
Father—in the first place by glancing back at the language 6 
λόγος ἣν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, the Logos was with God (ver. 1), and second- 
ly, by the antithesis with οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε Θεὸν πώποτε, none hath ever 
seen God. These words place the only-begotten Son in opposition 
to everything human and created, and ascribe to him, in his higher 
nature, precisely that which rises above the sphere of human exist- 
ence. The expression μονογενὴς υἱός, only-begotten Son, cannot refer 
to the incarnation of the Word (compare our remarks on i. 14), 
since even in his functions before that (ver. 5) he revealed to men 
the hidden essence of God. (᾿Ἐξηγεῖσθαι — droxadinrev, In 
the Septuagint for 77m, Levit. xiv. 57.)* Still, some difficulty 
seems occasioned by the circumstance, that in the Old Testa- 
ment God appeared to several, in particular to Moses, with whom 
Christ, as the communicator of the direct knowledge of God, is here 
contrasted ; while Jesus also speaks (Matth. v. 8) of seeing God. 
But the Old Testament representation itself, when accurately 
viewed, perfectly conforms to the idea here expressed. In the re- 
markable passage, Exod. xxxiii., God says to Moses (ver. 20): 
“Thou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me and 
live.’ The contrast between the sinful creature and the eternal 
God is so vast, that the former is incapable of sustaining the full 
manifestation of the Divine light; it needs a gradual disclosure 
thereof.f At the conclusion (ver. 23) it is further said ΠΕ ΩΝ ANT 
of the Father (which does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament), bears assuredly a 
striking character that has not yet been entirely cleared up. Perhaps there was floating 
in John’s mind a parallel with himself: as he was related to Jesus, so was Jesus to the 
Father. With this, Hengstenberg’s remark (iiber die Aechtheit des Pentateuch, p. 25) 
would well agrec—viz., that the self-designation of John as the disciple whom Jesus loved 
is an explanation of his own name, since he takes Jesus as equivalent to Jehovah, so 
that his name was a prophecy of the relation into which he entered to Jesus. But the 
ἐπιπεσὼν ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, leaning on the breast of Jesus (John xili. 25, xxi. 20), 
is only a symbolical expression for ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, whom Jesus loved. 

* Lucke strenuously maintains, and copiously proves, that ἐξηγεῖσθαι and καθηγεῖσθαι, 
in the profane writers, were used with special reference to the explanation of sacred 
things. Yet he himself says that here the Evangelist may have only unconsciously used 
the very word which in the best manner points out the essential characteristic of the 
revelation of Christ. As a supplement to ἐξηγήσατο, Kuinoel justly adds τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
which certainly, as Licke remarks, is to be understood as meaning the χάρις καὶ ἀλήθεια 
(ver. 17.) 

+ Although Steudel {in the Tiibing. Pfingstprogramm, 1830) contends against the dis- 
tinction between the hidden and the revealed God, yet he seems in reality only to deny 
the Arian view of a Being standing midway between God and men: and certainly 
he does so with truth. The contrast doubtless may be understood altogether differently 
and then be in harmony with Scripture. John xii. 41 shews that the idea which we have 


Joun 1. 19. by 


avy? Nd 0082 Thus in the cases of theophany, men of God, under 
the Old Testament did not see the hidden essence of God, but his 
image (εἰκών). But the image of God is the Son, the Revealer 
of the hidden Father, and accordingly it was always (even before 
the incarnation in Christ) the Son who disclosed to men the 
inner essence of God by degrees, as they were capable of appre- 
hending it.* 

Hence, as Deity itself, he stands in opposition to everything 
human ; no one knows the Father except the Son (Matth. xi. 27). 
(The readings μονογενὴς υἱὸς Θεός, or Θεοῦ, are in any case to be 
rejected ; probably they arose from the endeavour to make the an- 
tithesis with οὐδείς as distinct as possible.) 


§ 2. First Testimony or THE Baptist CONCERNING CHRIST. 
Jesus CottEcts Discrpues. 


(John i. 19-52.) 


The intimations already given (ver. 6, 7, 15) of John’s testimony, 
are now followed by a more detailed description of the circumstances 
under which it was delivered. The fact that the Evangelist opens 
his work with this ; the very form of the narration (comp. especially 
ver. 20) ; and in like manner the immediately following account of 
the way in which the Lord gathered disciples, while John referred 
them to him—all render it certain that the Evangelist had some- 
thing special in view. He doubtless intended to contradict the 
opinion of the later disciples of John, that the Baptist himself was 
the Messiah. Moreover, the occasion on which the Baptist deliv- 
ered the solemn testimony that he was not Christ, specially invited 
a decisive declaration ; a formal deputation from the Sanhedrim 
appeared, whose object was to question him respecting the nature 
and legitimacy of his office. The highest ecclesiastical court pos- 


given of the Theophanies is quite the same as that of the Evangelist himself; for it is 
there explained that Isaiah (chap. vi.) saw Christ. 

* In the fragments of Orpheus, terms and thoughts occur which are quite similar to 
the description of the ministry of the Divine Logos. In the first fragment from Justin 
Martyr, it is said: 

Εἷς ἔστ᾽ αὐτογενῆ ς, ἑνὸς ἔκγονα πάντα τέτυκται" 
Ἔν δ᾽ αὐτοῖς αὐτὸς περινίσσεται" οὐδέ τις αὐτὸν 
Εἰσοράᾳ θνητῶν αὐτὸς dé ye πάντας ὁρᾶται" 
In the second Fragment from Eusebius (Praep. Evang. xiii. 12) it is said: 
Οὐ γὰρ κέν τις ἴδοι θνητῶν μερόπων Kpaivorta, 
Εἰ μὴ μουνογενής τις ἀποῤῥὼξ φύλου ἄνωθεν 
Χαλδαίων. 
Doubtless, however, Christian, or at least Jewish influence, assisted in the composition of 
this and similar Orphean fragments. 


328 Joun I, 19-25, 


sessed a perfect right to send such a deputation. (On this subject, 
compare the remarks in the Comm. Matth. xxi. 23.) Hence John 
answered them and gave them an nix, sign, by which he proved him- 
self to be a genuine prophet, viz., “‘ that the Messiah was already in 
their midst.” From this circumstance we may conclude that our 
attention is here occupied with a different occurrence from that nar- 
rated Matth. iii. 7, ff. ; for in this latter passage no deputation ap- 
pears, but we merely find, amid the masses of people surrounding 
John, individual Pharisees and Sadducees who wish to be baptized. 
This is clearly shewn by the parallel, Luke iii. 7, ff. Moreover, 
since it is said, John i. 81, “1 knew him (Jesus) not,” whereas here - 
in the answer to the deputation Jesus is described as known to John, 
this occurrence must have taken place after the baptism and temp- 
tation of Jesus. (Comp. the particulars, ver. 29.) 

Ver. 19, 20.—By the expression οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, the Jews, John here 
designates the members of the Sanhedrim as representatives of the 
whole nation. All imagined sdmething superior in the Baptist, 
but they were in doubt as to his proper character. The reiteration 
ὡμολόγησε καὶ obk ἠρνήσατο Kat ὡμολόγησεν, he acknowledged, and de- 
nied not, and acknowledged, obviously implies great stress. The 
Evangelist means to say that the Baptist declared in the strongest 
terms that he was not the Messiah. The polemical reference in 
these words to the errors of later disciples of John appears to me 
unmistakable. 

Ver. 21-22.—The disavowal of the office of Messiah on the part 
of the Baptist induces the deputies to associate him with other im- 
portant personages ; they ask him whether he may be Elias, who is 
to precede the Messiah, or Jeremiah,* concerning whom a similar 
opinion was entertained. (Comp. the Comm. on Matth. xvi. 13.) 
But the Baptist disavows this also. The apparent contradiction 
occasioned by the circumstance that Jesus calls John Elias, is easily 
reconciled by Luke i. 17, where John is described as working in the 
spirit and power of Elias. (Comp. the Comm, on Matth. xi. 14, and 
on Matth. xvii. 10.) 

Ver. 23.— After these negative declarations the Baptist at length 
speaks of himself positively ; he is the φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, 
voice of one crying in the desert. He here appeals to the passage, 
Isaiah xl. 3, which is also applied to the Baptist, Matth. iii. 3; Mark 
1.2; Luke iii. 4. (Instead of ἑτοιμάσατε, which the three Evangel- 
ists have in common with the LXX., John admits εὐθύνατε, doubt- 
less only because he quoted from memory.) 

Ver. 24, 25.—John’s additional remark, that these deputies 


* Bleek (loc. cit. p. 423, ff.) does not think that Jeremiah is expressly intended, but 
he is of opinion that in the general sense only, according to Deut. xviii. 15, a prophet 
was to precede the Messiah, and to this reference is here made, 


Joun I. 26, 27. 329 


(Priests and Levites) were of the sects of the Phansees and Saddu- 
cees, was very appropriate here, because this was the most likely 
motive of their subsequent question. The Pharisees rigidly adhered 
to external rites; hence they were struck at John’s baptizing. 
They evidently considered baptism as nothing unbecoming to the 
Messiah or to Elias. (Comp. Lightfoot hor. hebr. ad ἢ. 1. Never- 
theless the Rabbinical passages there adduced do not expressly 
treat of a baptism, but only in general of the purification which 
Elias was to accomplish. The Jews, however, justly acknowledged 
the baptism of John asa symbol of purification.) But that any 
one should baptize members of the people of God—consequently de- 
claring them impure and in need of purification in order to be 
received into a higher communion—appeared to them inadmissible. 
For the rest, it cannot be demonstrated from this passage (comp. 
the Comm. Matth. 111. 1) that the Jews believed the Messiah or his 
forerunner would baptize. The words only signify that the baptism 
of Israelites, by these individuals, was not inappropriate, since they 
would not merely—like ordinary prophets—strengthen the existing 
theocratic life, but would found a new, higher constitution. But 
the symbolical significance of the rite of baptism was so intelligible, 
that as soon as the Jews saw John practise it, they understood 
what he meant by it. Accordingly, this passage affords no proof 
that baptism (in its distinction from mere lustration) was known 
before John and Christ. At-any rate, it could not have been 
regarded as a prerogative belonging only to the Messiah to baptize 
the Jews, because in that case John would by no means have 
adopted it. Moreover, the words before us state nothing to that 
effect.* 

Ver. 26, 27.—To solve this difficulty; John specifies the charac- 
ter of his baptism, which only operated negatively (separating from 
the impenitent generation), not positively (giving power from above 
for a new life) like the baptism of Christ. (Comp. the particulars 
in the Comm, on Matth. iii. 1.) The synoptical Evangelists have 
the same words in a more complete form (comp, the remarks on 
Matth. iii, 11, and the parallels), in particular, they expressly add 
the baptism by the Spirit, (βαπτίζειν ἐν πνεύματι), which belongs to 
the Messiah. The words μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν, ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε, there 
standeth in the midst of you, etc., are peculiar to John. They are 
very important to the connexion of the whole passage. It appears 


* The importance attributed by the Jews to the rite of baptism is explained, if we 
take into account the circumstance that no post-Mosaic prophet, seer, judge, or any 
teacher of Divine things under the Old Testament, could introduce a sacred usage, rite, or 
ceremony to be observed as the Mosaic regulations by the people of God. Subsequently 
to Moses none but the Messiah could do this according to the passage Deut. xviii. 15, 
ΠΑ prophet like me (the founder of a new institution of God) will the Lord raise up, 
him shall ye hear.” 


330 JOHN 1. 28, 29. 


to me probable that the Evangelist who, as a disciple of John, may 
have listened to this very conversation with the deputation from the 
Sanhedrim, reported the words in an abbreviated form. Not im- 
probably the deputies further proposed an express question to the 
Baptist regarding the prophetic legitimation in general. (Comp. 
the Comm. on Matth. xxi. 23.) To this reference is made in the 
words μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν, there standeth one among you. By means 
of this σημεῖον or nix, sign—that he announced tothem the Messiah 
as already walking amongst them—the Baptist proved himself to 
be a true prophet of God.* On this account also the Lord could 
ask (Matth. xxi. 25): “ Why did ye.not believe John ?” (With 
respect to ver. 27, comp. the remarks on ver. 15.) 

Ver. 28.—This important event, the official legitimation of the 
Baptist, so impressed John, that he further particularizes the place 
where it occurred. The reading Βηθανίᾳ (m8 m2 ship-place), is 
doubtless to be preferred to the reading of the text. rec. Βηθαβαρᾷ 
(anax mz ferry-place). The latter name has only been received 
through Origen. He found on the Jordan a Bethabara, where, ac- 
cording to tradition, John baptized, whilst Bethany lay inland near 
Jerusalem. But the spot here meant certainly is not this well- 
known residence of Lazarus ; it was a little place bearing the same 
name on the other side*of the Jordan, which may have been de- 
stroyed before the time of Origen. 

Ver. 29.—In the passage ver. 19-28, the chief thing presented 
was the negative part of the Baptist’s testimony, viz., that he was 
not the Messiah ; in the following (ver. 29-34) we have his posvtve 
statements respecting Jesus. The Evangelist naturally says nothing 
about the act of the baptism of Jesus himself, because it was of no 
importance to his purpose. The disciples of John might perhaps 
even infer from it that the Baptist must necessarily be superior to 
Jesus. The following words must also have been spoken after the 
baptism of Jesus. ‘True, there need be no embarrassment on ac- 

* The words “did no miracle,” John x. 41, are to be explained in accordance with 
the same views. This statement is only intended to deny actual miracles (τέρατα) in the 
work of John; but the reality of his prophecy concerning Christ is most distinctly re- 
cognized in that passage. De Wette himself (on x. 41) acknowledges a testimony to the 
purity of the tradition, in the fact that no miracle has been ascribed to the Baptist, and 
even Strauss will not venture to deny this. But then, on what ground was it that the 
ever-ready fabulists, who abounded in apostolic times, did not use the favourable oppor- 
tunity to adorn the life of the Baptist with wonders? 

¢ I think it much more probable that these words, as well as John’s declarations to 
the deputation, were uttered before the baptism, and (with Meyer) that the baptism takes 
place between ver. 31, 32. John’s language to the deputation, “there standeth one 
among you,” does not necessarily imply at all any personal acquaintance of the Baptist 
with Jesus, rather perhaps the reverse, and a Divinely inspired declaration that he 
whom he came to herald was in their midst, is surely not inadmissible. Nordo I think 


there is any difficulty in supposing the language v. 29 to have been uttered before the 
baptism. John was a prophet, and it is by no means unnatural that in the moment of 


Joun 1. 29. 331 


count of the ἐπαύριον, on the next day, if we only assume a quick 
succession of the occurrences, which there is nothing to contradict. 
The course of events may be conceived thus : In the morning of the 
jirst day came the deputation ; towards evening John baptized 
Jesus ; on the next day he spoke: the words now following. It is 
not advisable to take the ἐπαύριον (after the analogy of the Hebrew 
~m2) in the wider signification, because John here gives such a pre- 
cise account, that he even specifies the hours (ver. 40). The first 
meeting with his heavenly friend had made an indelible impression 
upon his memory. But the circumstance, noticed above in the re- 
marks on i. 19, that the Baptist speaks of Jesus in such a manner 
as already to acknowledge his higher dignity, leads me, with Bleek 
and Tholuck, to think it more probable that all of which John 
informs us took place after the baptism of Christ. Adopting this 
supposition, one thing only seems strange, viz., that in the synoptical 
Gospels (Matth. i. 11, and parallels), the Baptist utters words 
before the baptism, similar to those which in John he utters after 
it. But Tholuck justly observes, that the Baptist may surely have 
repeated such figurative expressions as “‘ loosing the shoe-latchets ;” 
at first he uttered them before the baptism to the people, without 
being aware that the Jesus externally known to him was he whose 
advent he was to proclaim ; after the baptism he addressed similar 
words to the deputation of the Sanhedrim, with more distinct re- 
ference to the person of Jesus. Further, since the four days (John 
i, 29, 85, 44, 11, 1) are closely connected, the forty-days’ temptation 
of Christ requires that all should be placed after the baptism. 
There also appears to be some foundation for Tholuck’s remark, 
that the words μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν, there standeth among you, 
(ver. 26) hardly suit the supposition that Christ was still confined 
to the narrow circle of private life. 

The exclamation with which the Baptist points out Jesus to his 
disciples, ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ κ. τ. 2., Behold the Lamb of God, is 
very remarkable, especially in the mouth of the Baptist. It shews 
that at least at those times when the fulness of the Spirit was 
specially accessible to him, he had a deep knowledge of the way of 
salvation. The whole Mosaic institution of sacrifices, combined 
with various declarations of the Old Testament respecting the suf- 
fering and atoning Messiah (6. g. Ps. xxii.; Isaiah liii.), had doubt- 


the Saviour’s appearance, he should have been made known to John, and that he in pro- 
phetic rapture should have uttered those remarkable words which are at all events the 
immediate product of inspiration, and altogether transcend the level of John’s ordinary 
conceptions of the Messiah at this time. Matth. iii. 14, shews that John knew whom he 
was about to baptize, and it is more than probable that the Spirit did not leave it to Jesus 
himself to give the information. In harmony with this is the καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν, and he 
testified (scil. agaiu), and the use of the perfect τεθέαμαι, J have beheld, as of an action thet 
has just transpired.—[K. 


382 Joun I, 29. 


less always kept the truth of this doctrine alive in the minds of 
individuals among the Israclites, although the mass entirely mis- 
took it. In like manner, the Baptist rightly perceived it under the 
illumination of the Holy Spirit. The term ἀμνός = πῷ is quite in 
conformity with Isa, lili. 7, where it occurs and even refers to a 
slaughtered lamb. In the Apocalypse, John very frequently uses 
ἀρνίον, lamb, and occasionally with the addition ἐσφαγμένον, slaugh- 
tered (Rev. v. 6, xiii. 8 ; comp. also 1 Pet. 1. 19), so that there is no 
doubt with regard to the meaning of the comparison ; Jesus is 
compared to a sacrificial lamb led to death. The following expres- 
sion ὡμαρτία τοῦ κόσμου, sin of the world, shews why he is called lamb 
of God, viz., as the abolisher of sin and the sufferer for sin, sent by 
God. (Just as 2 Cor. v. 19, θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλάσσων 
ἑαυτῷ.) God himself, as it were, ransoms the sinful world by the 
sacrifice of his only-begotten Son. Those superficial expositions of 
the profound words before us, which either make lamb to be under- 
stood merely as an image of meeckness, and take away sin (αἴρειν 
ἁμαρτίαν) of the removal of sin by means of instruction (as Dr. 
Paulus thinks), or take lamb, ἀμνός, as an image of an innocent suf- 
ferer, and αἴρειν ἁμαρτίαν as meaning the endurance of persecu- 
tions (according to Gabler, in the sense, “‘ this innocent person will 
be obliged to suffer much”), may be regarded as set aside by the 
remarks of Liicke, Tholuck, and especially Hengstenberg, respecting 
the suffering and atoning Messiah.* (Christol. vol. i. p. 274, fi— 
With respect to the circumstance of lambs not being used for tres. 
pass and sin-offerings, compare my remarks concerning the paschal 
lamb, on Matth. xxvi. 17, which removes the difficulty resulting 
from a comparison of that passage with 1 Cor. v. 7.) 

But there yet remains for consideration one question which even 
most recent investigators have not sufficiently determined. Tholuck 
thinks that αἴρειν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου merely means ‘to bear 
the punishment of sin ;” he is utterly opposed to the signification 
“to take away.” He says that the phrase αἴρειν ἁμαρτίαν is equiva- 
lent to 3‘, 8x2; that this does mean “ to take away sin” like ἀφαιρεῖν, 
in several connexions, but by no means in all; and that it is often 
= 77, 529, as much as φέρειν, λαμβάνειν, Tholuck also cites Levit. 
xx, 19, f.;Numb, xviii... 22.5) Ezekiel, xviii.,.19., €,. xxi..353 ame 
thinks that since in the LXX., Isaiah liii. 11, ἀνοίσει stands for 397 
and the Evangelist may be supposed to have had this passage in his 
mind, it is in the highest degree probable that the meaning here is, 


* That tho idea of a substitutionary endurance of punishment by a righteous person 
was not unknown to the Jews, is shewn not merely by the passages from Josephus and 
Zohar, quoted by Tholuck on this place, but also by the numerous passages of the Old 
Testament, in which mention is made of a representation of the people, or of the per- 
sons presenting themselves before the Judge on behalf of the unjust. (Comp. Ezek. xiii 
5, xxii. 30; Isa. lxiv. 7; Ps. evi. 23: [Exod. xxxii. 11, f.]). 


Joun 1. 29. 333 


‘to bear the punishment of sin.” ΤῸ me, however, there appears 
to be no real distinction between xv and 530, αἴρειν and ἀφαιρεῖν, in 
the connexion with ἁμαρτία. It is necessary here to combine the two 
significations ‘ to bear” and “‘ to take away.” The sacrificial lamb 
which bears the sin also takes it away; there is no bearing of sin 
without removing it. Tholuck was led to make this distinction 
merely through observing that opponents laid so much stress on the 
signification ‘‘to take away.” The error, however, consists not in 
the application of this meaning, but in their ascribing the removal 
of sin to the teaching, not to the sacrificial death of the Lamb of 
God. Further, the signification ‘‘ punishment of sin,” for ἁμαρτία 
in this passage certainly cannot be demonstrated. 1 John ii. 5 
clearly shews, from the connexion, that αἴρειν τὰς ἁμαρτίας, to take 
away sin, in John means to abolish, to remove sin itself. Hence we 
can only express the sense of our passage thus, by a periphrasis : 
“behold this is the sacrificial Lamb, prepared and given by God 
himself for this purpose, who bears the sin of the world, and by his 
sufferings and death annuls and removes it.” Scripture knows 
nothing of an endurance of the penalty of sin on the part of the 
Saviour while men retain the sin itself ; sin continuing would con- 
tinually reproduce the penalty, and thus’the remission would be 
annulled ; sin itself, says Augustine, is the true punishment of sin, 
and sin is truly forgiven only when it is taken away. Nevertheless 
it is also true, that man may have the hope of forgiveness entire 
and unclouded, although he is compelled to acknowledge that he 
does not possess entire freedom from sin ; only so far, however, as 
(according to Rom. vii. 25, at which passage the whole of this diffi- 
cult doctrine will be further developed) the man, in his inmost 
essence (the νοῦς, the true self), is taken possession of by the new 
Divine life that is in Christ, and can attribute what is in this to the 
whole, even although his sensuous nature (σάρξ) be not yet entirely 
controlled by this new life. Now, it is remarkable that the Baptist 
not only so decidedly declares the doctrine of the suffering and 
atoning Messiah, but also extends the efficiency of the Messiah to 
the whole world. It might have been supposed that this surpassed 
the Baptist’s range of view, and that he would have contemplated 
only the people of Israel. (Comp, the Comment. on Matth. 111, 1.) 
And this consideration might for a moment dispose us to admit the 
view that only the words ide 6 ὠμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, behold the Lamb of God, 
were the words of the Baptist, as they occur by themselves in ver. 
36 ; the apposition, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμον, who taketh away, 
etc., being an addition of the Evangelist’s. John’s custom, too, of 
making appendices of his own to the speeches of others which he 
reports, would accord well with this. But, as Liicke observes, it is just 
as possible that the words of the Baptist were reported in an ab- 


334 Joun 1, 30-84. 


breviated form in ver. 36, since in the term “lamb” the thought 
which follows was fully implied. And I am the more decided 
in favour of the latter acceptation, because the Old Testament con- 
tains abundant intimations, that the work of the Messiah will be 
extended beyond the boundaries of the people of Israel ; and such 
passages might conduct the Baptist, as well as Simeon, under the 
illumination of the Holy Spirit, to the comprehensive redemption 
which should proceed from the Messiah. (Comp. Luke ii. 31, 32, 
where the Old Testament passages pertaining to this subject are 
quoted.) 

Ver. 80, 31.—The following words have already been explained, 
ver. 15. They refer particularly to ver. 26, 27, so that ὃς ἔμπροσθεν 
k. τ. A, corresponds with οὗ ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀξιος κ. τ. A. The final clause, 
ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν, because he was before me, confirms the previous 
thoughts, and has reference to the eternal existence of the Son 
with the Father. With respect to the οὐκ ἤδειν αὐτόν, I knew him 
not, consult the Comment. on Matth. iii. 17, where it has already 
been observed that this expression can only be understood of that 
inward knowledge, instead of which an unequivocal sign was given 
to him by the Spirit, the occurrence of which enabled him to re- 
veal the presence of the Messiah to the people with certainty. 

Ver, 82-34——On the baptism itself, to which the Baptist here 
barely refers, we have already said what is needed in the Comment. 
Matth. i. 16.* 

It is peculiar to John’s Gospel, that the descent of the Spirit 
like a dove upon Jesus was given to the Baptist, as a sign by which 
he might recognize the Messiah. Unquestionably this is a proof that 
the baptism of Christ was not for the multitude ; while it also af- 
fords ground for the conclusion that the Baptist may have been in 
doubt as to how he should with certainty discover the Messiah. It 
was by means of inward revelation (for there can be no doubt that 
this is the meaning of ὁ πέμψας με eitev, he that sent me satd, ver. 
33) that such a sign was now given to him. Thus eternal love does 
not leave weak man, who is so liable to error, without distinct de- 
clarations and testimonies, by which, when the heart is sincere, the 
truth becomes descernible in difficult circumstances. 

As the condensed summary of the Baptist’s testimony, it is said, 


* Icannot agree with Tholuck’s remarks on the passage, in the fifth edition of his 
Commentary. He thinks that the Spirit was not really communicated to Christ at his 
baptism, but, on the contrary, only the consciousness that the moment of his public ap- 
pearance—the opportunity for the Spirit already dwelling within him to manifest itself 
was arrived. The account of the baptism plainly produces the impression that the Spirit 
is for the first time communicated to Christ. This supposition admits of no hesitation, 
if it be remembered that the human nature of Christ always followed the general course 
of development, and consequently received the fulness of the Spirit only by degreea 
(Comp. Liicke’s Excursus on this subject, vol. i. p. 373, ff.) 


Joun I, 35-43. 835 


ver. 84, ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, that this is the Son of God. 
This is the first instance in which this name appears in the mouth 
of the Baptist. It cannot be taken merely as the name of Messiah 
in the subordinate Jewish sense, synonymously with “ Christ,” on 
account of the ‘‘ he was before me,” ver. 30, which plainly refers to 
the eternal existence with the Father. The knowledge of this was 
accompanied by that of the higher nature of Jesus generally. 
(Comp. the particulars on John i, 50.) “I knew him not” (ver. 
81) does not stand in contrariety to Matth. 11, 14; the Bap- 
tist always placed Jesus higher than himself, although without 
knowing, or being certain, of his Messianic dignity before the bap- 
tism ; he may even have regarded him as a prophet. 

Ver. 35-40,—Up to this point the representation of the Evangel- 
ist is obviously intended to shew how the Baptist refused all hon- 
our for himself and heaped it upon Jesus, so that the disciples of 
John might be rendered conscious of having paid false homage to 
their master. The Evangelist now further describes how, in conse- 
quence of this observation of the Baptist, some of his disciples—and 
among them the Evangelist himself (ver. 40)—allied themselves to 
Jesus: as if again to intimate what they, the disciples of John, 
must do, if they participated the sentiments of their teacher. 

The great sensitiveness of the Evangelist’s mind is touchingly 
shewn in his representation of this first contact with the Lord ; the 
circumstances are present to him in the minutest details ; he still 
remembers the very hour.* It is to be regretted that he reports no 
particulars of those conversations of the Lord by which he was 
bound to him for the whole of his life ; he throws everything per- 
sonal into the background. 

Ver. 41-43.—The one of these two disciples who is expressly 
mentioned was Andrew, brother of Peter ; the other, concerning 
whom silence is observed, was doubtless John himself, who, through 
delicate reserve, abstains from naming himself throughout the Gos- 
pel. Probably the ardent Simon Peter had also already hastened to 
the Baptist, that he might hear his exhortations to repentance, and 
prepare himself for the coming Messiah. Andrew, therefore, hastens 
to inform him that he whom they longed for is found, that their 
hope and the hope of their fathers is fulfilled, (Πρῶτος for πρότερος, 
as ver, 15, since probably both sought him. For Μεσσίαν many 
codices read Μεσίαν, which reading may indeed be preferable, as the 
more difficult.) Jesus, looking attentively and penetratingly upon 
Sifnon (ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ is to be taken as emphatic), immediately 
assigns to him anewname. This name is to be understood only as 

* The computation is probably made according to Roman reckoning; so that ten 


o’clock in the morning is to be understood. Comp. Rettig (in the Stud. 183d, No. i.) and 
Hug (Freib. Zeitachr. No. v.) 


990 Joun I. 44-50. 


expressing the inward nature of the apostle, and indeed his new na- 
ture, sanctified and transformed by the power of grace. Energy 
and inward firmness were the leading features of his character, 
which, in their natural state, were manifested in the form of false 
self-confidence and assurance, but, after the temptations to these 
evils had been conquered, fitted him to be one of the pillars of the 
Church. (Comp. Matth. xvi. 18 ; Gall. i. 9. Iétpog = xara, “ Rock,” 
hence ““ Rock-man.” 

Ver. 44, 45.—Another young man also, Philip, a native of the 
same town with Peter and Andrew, was called by the Redeemer to 
follow him, shortly before his departure to Galilee. The circum- 
stance that the call of the apostle, whose name we have mentioned, 
took place before the return of Jesus into Galilee, clearly shews 
that the account, Matth. iv. 18, ff, Mark 1, 16, ff., does not speak 
of the first calling of the disciples, but of their invitation to perma- 
nent companionship with the Lord. (Comp. the Comm, on Matth. 
iv. 18.) After this first summons from the Redeemer to follow him, 
the apostles returned to their earthly vocation ; it was not till after 
the second invitation that they followed Christ permanently. 

Ver. 46, 47.—The faith but just awakened immediately mani- 
fests itself, like a spreading fire, and similarly kindles everything sus- 
ceptible of its influence. Philip in his turn proclaims to Nathanael 
the Messiah whom they have found,* and who was promised in the 
sacred books of the Old Covenant. (Respecting his identity with 
Bartholomew, comp. the Comm. on Matth. x. 1. Nathanael was 
probably his proper name.t) When Philip calls Jesus υἱὸς τοῦ 
Ἰωσήφ, son of Joseph, he only utters the prevailing popular opinion. 
Nathanael expresses his doubt as to the truth of Philip’s declara- 
tion, by alluding to the contempt generally entertained for Galilee, 
in which province the small town of Nazareth was situate. (Comp. 
John vii. 52 ; Matth. ii. 23.) Philip, however, appeals merely to 
the striking appearance of Christ himself, by means of which Na- 
thanael also was soon won. 

Ver. 48-50.—The Lord, who knew the depths of the heartt 
(John 11. 25), not merely according to that ordinary human knowl- 
edge which is derived from experience, but by the Divine power that 
dwelt in him—as he beheld Nathanael approaching him, expressed 
the judgment concerning him, that he was sincere and guileless, 


* Comp. the remarks in the Comm. on Matth. xiii. 44, ff, concerning the different 
modes of conversion. Peter was of an inquisitive nature, Nathanael was more quiet and 
contemplative ; nevertheless, both were obedient to the light as soon as they beheld it. 

+ The name bx3m3 occurs in the Old Testament very frequently. Comp. Numb. i. 8, 
ii. 5; 1 Chron. ii. 14, and many other instances. It answers to the Greek names Θεόδω- 
ρος, Θεόδοτος, Θεοδώρητος. 

¢ So Bleek justly observes, in his remarks on the passage in the Stud. loc. cit. p 
449, ἢ 


Joun 1. 48-50. aoe 


This is just the characteristic of mind (sincerity and uprightness), of 
which we may say, without a doubt, that it cannot be distinguished, 
here, with perfect certainty by mere experience ; to do this requires 
an insight into the hidden depths of the soul. (Ἰσραηλίτης is here 
used pregnantly as a name of honour; “he is truly a member of 
the nation of believers, the people of God.”) Upon the question of 
Nathanael, πόθεν με γινώσκεις ; whence knowest thou me ? the Saviour 
reminds him of a scene which had taken place, probably a short time 
before, under a fig-tree. This word discloses to the disciple the 
Divine knowledge of Jesus, and he recognizes him as his Lord and 
King. What passed with Nathanael under the tree is not stated ; 
we may, however, conclude from the connexion, that it must have 
been something important, and, indeed, something internal, the 
former because it affected Nathanael so deeply, the latter because 
the sight of anything external could never have formed the ground 
for such an avowal. The disciple must have believed that what 
Jesus referred to could not possibly have been discerned except by 
Divine power ; but how could this with any probability have been 
believed of anything merely external ? Accordingly Christ’s seeing 
him can only be understood as an inward sight. Nathanael’s soul 
lay spread open before his spiritual eyes, and he had read its depths. 
Doubtless the disciple had, under the fig-tree, uttered in prayer his 
most secret desires and hopes, and to have been observed in this by 
the eyes of the all-seeing, so subdued his heart, that he also believed 
in the Nazarene. 

Ver. 50 is important for fixing the conception of υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
Son of God. This passage, in fact, appears in favour of the inter- 
pretation adopted by Liicke himself, and by Tholuck—that Son of 
God is only another expression for Christ, Messiah. For, according 
to the point of view occupied by Nathanael, we cannot pre-suppose 
in him any knowledge of the Divine nature of Christ ; and since 
“Son of God” precedes ‘ King of Israel” (βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ), this 
latter appears to be only an explanation of the previous phrase. 
But proof that this was merely a name of the Messiah, can be ad- 
duced from no other quarter (as we have shewn in our remarks on 
Luke i. 35); nay, John x. 33, ff, expressly proves that the Jews 
themselves considered it arrogance and blasphemy that the Messiah 
should call himself Son of God, and therefore no false Messiah ap- 
propriated this name; hence this single passage, which, when 
viewed alone, appears to favour the above hypothesis, must be other- 
wise interpreted.* The simplest method of solution is to say that 


* Licke (in his Comm. on the passage, p. 392, note) will only concede to me that the 
name ‘“ Son of God” was not in very common use as a designation of the Messiah among 
the Jews in the time of Christ; he allows that the more definite metaphysical idea may 
have belonged to the Christian mode of thinking; but regards such passages as John x ἡ 


Vo. II.—22 


338 Joun 1. 51, 52. 


here the Evangelist, anticipating the later knowledge of Nathanael, 
attributes to him the declaration of faith in the Son of God, imme- 
diately upon his avowal of belief. Only, in that case the phrase 
must, as in all similar passages (Matth. xvi. 16; John vi. 69 [text 
recept.], xi. 27, xx. 31), be placed after, whereas it here precedes. 
Hence it may be better to say that Nathanael had already perhaps 
learned, through Philip, that the Baptist (to whose disciples Na- 
thanael had also probably belonged) had called Jesus Son of God 
(ver. 34) ; and that he now ascribed this name to Christ, not asso- 
ciating with it a distinctly defined idea, but feeling that it indicated 
something gréat and glorious ; meanwhile the Messianic King was 
the more familiar name in which for him ‘everything worthy of de- 
sire was concentrated, and Nathanael therefore adds this, in his 
view containing the higher import. The passage would then be un- 
derstood in the following form: ‘“ Thou art truly the Son of God, 
whom, as I have heard, thou dost announce thyself to be.” | 

Ver. 51, 52.—The Lord now proceeds with emphasis from the 
lesser to the greater,* and informs Nathanael, as well as all the 
other disciples, that they should behold something more sublime 
than his power to discover hidden things, viz. they should see the 
whole heavenly world in his service. We have already in discuss- 
ing angelic appearances in general (Comm. on Matth. i. 18) point- 
ed to the interpretation of this passage. The ascent and descent of 
the angels (of which Jacob’s heavenly ladder Gen. xxvii. 12, is a 
significant type) simply points out the active flow and reflow of Di- 
vine powers ; the opened heaven (comp. the Comm. on Matth. 11]. 
16) indicates the restoration of that unity between the higher world 
of spirit and this lower system of things, which had been destroyed 
by sin; the ascent and descent upon the Son of Man signifies that 
he is the centre and the leader of all the higher powers of the uni- 
32, ff. xi, 27; Luke xxii. 70, as proving that the term was not unknown to the Jews as 
a designation of the Messiah. But, in the passage John x. 32, ff., the Jews wish that 
he would declare himself to be the Messiah, while they determine to stone him, when he 
calls himself ‘Son of God ;” in this they perceive a blasphemous assumption, which they 
had not found in the name of the Messiah, John xi. 27, Martha, the sister of Lazarus, 
speaks; with her the name “Son of God” is an expression of the Christian teaching 
which she has received; she uses it as a closer definition of the term Messiah. [ἢ Luko 
xxii. 70, Christ is so called by way of derision, in reference to the known fact that he 
had applied this appellation to himself. Thus none of these passages affords the least 
proof that the name “Son of God” was recognized by the Jews as a designation of the 
Messiah. Our passage indeed, has the most appearance of it; but the circumstance that 
no false Messiah ever ventured to call himself “Son of God” appears to me a decisive 
proof that this appellation, as also the name “Son of Man,” was unknown to them, that 
it did not occur in the usage of Jewish language, nay, that it was shuddered at as blas- 
phemy. 

* The formula ὡμὴν ἐμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν isemployed by Joun with great frequency. 
Comp. iii. 3, 5, 11; v. 19, 24, 25; vi. 26, 32, 47, 63; viii, 34, 51, 58;.x. 1, 7; xii. 24; 
xii 16, 20, 21, 38; xiv. 12; xvi. 20, 23; xxi. 18, 


Joun II. 1. 339 


verse. (Respecting ‘Son of Man” comp. the Comm. on Luke i. 
35.) The words az’ ἄρτι, henceforth, cannot be strictly referred to 
the moment of time then present ; the opening of heaven and the 
outpouring of Divine powers is to be reckoned from the baptism 
(Matth. iii. 16) as the public inauguration of Christ, and since that 
time it has neverceased. This spiritual view of the words has been 
reached by all the more profound expositors of every period, e. g. 
Origen and Augustine, Luther and Calvin, Liicke and Tholuck.* 
Every limitation of the words to individual circumstances, whether 
to angelic appearances proper, or to the moral working of Jesus, is 
to be rejected ; the collective work of the Lord, as a permanent de- 
velopment of heavenly powers, and as a continuous leading back to 
the world of spirit, is here to be understood. It is only in regard to 
the idea of angel that reference need be made to the remarks above. 
(Comp. Matth. 1.18.) It was there mentioned that the ἄγγελοι, angels, 
are at one time conceived of as powers of nature, at another as per- 
sonal existences. Here both references may be said to be involved. 
Spiritual agencies, whether operating in the internal or in the ex- 
ternal world, are viewed in their concentrated forms, and are referred 
back to the Prince of the kingdom of light, in his earthly manifesta- 
tion—the Messiah—as their centre. Hence this ascent and descent 
of angels denotes the purely physical effects which flowed from the 
Redeemer in miracles, just as much as the purely moral works of 
regeneration and renovation. It is remarkable, however, that the 
ascent (ἀναβαίνειν) is placed first, whereas it would appear neces- 
sary that the descent (καταβαίνειν) should precede this; doubt- 
less, the only reason of this arrangement is the fact that in the 
Logos, which in Jesus had become man, the collective world of spirit 
was in effect transferred to the earth, and hence the active flow 
of life perpetually issued from him and returned to him, 


§ 3. Jesus AT THE MARRIAGE IN CANA. 
(John ii. 1-12.) 


Ver. 1.—The journey to Galilee mentioned above (ver. 43) as 
contemplated, is supposed to be accomplished, and Jesus appears in 
Cana, the birth-place of Nathanael (John xxi. 2), who probably ac- 
companied the Redeemer with John to Galilee. Cana lay about half 
a day’s journey from the sea of Gennesaret (Joseph. de vita ο. 16). 


* When, however, Tholuck (on the passage p, 79, fifth edition) thinks that Matth. 
xxvi. 64 is to be understood in a similarly figurative manner, I cannot agree with him: 
on the contrary, there the subject of discourse is the real coming of Christ, which, as 
always in the Old Testament, is merely transferred to a period just beyond the present. 

+ There was besides a second city of this name between Tyre and Sidon (Josh. xix. 
28), in the tribe of Asher, which, however, in all probability is not meant here 


340 Joun II. 2-6. 


From Jordan, on the shore of which we see Jesus up to this 
time (i. 28), he might reach Cana in two days; he could thus 
arrive there on the third day (reckoned from the last ἐπαύριον, 
1, 44), 

= 2-4.—Christ was invited to the marriage, which probably 
took place in a family related to him (since, according to 11. 12, re- 
lations of Jesus were present). (It is unnecessary to take ἐκλήθη as 
pluperfect, since it is not likely that the marriage was his motive 
for returning to Galilee ; the reasons that determined him were 
certainly from within.) As there was need of wine, Mary requested 
her Divine Son to supply the deficiency ; doubtless with the design, 
as the answer of Jesus shews, that he should display his miraculous 
power. Probably the Lord had in some way given his mother a hint 
on this subject, otherwise it is difficuit to explain how it was that 
Mary thought of this particular form of the manifestation of mir- 
aculous power, and that Jesus displayed it just in this manner. He 
repels Mary only in respect to time, when he says : οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα 
μου, my hour is not yet come.* (Ὥρα, like καιρός, with the pronoun, 
commonly denotes the last crisis of the Lord, 6. g. John vii. 30, xvil. 
1. But in the passage vii. 8, as here, the expression refers to that 
which is less remote. Passages such as Matth. xiv. 15 do not come 
under this category, because there the pronoun is absent from ὥρα. 
[Comp. the remarks on Matth. xxvi. 18.]). The hour of Jesus was 
the time for action fixed by the Father, of whose holy will Jesus 
was undoubtedly every moment sensible. Of such passive submis- 
sion Mary had no idea, and hence her impatient haste. That the 
term of address, γύναι, woman, involves no disrespect, has been al- 
ready frequently remarked ; but from the words τί ἐμοὶ καὶ oot ; what 
have I to do with thee? (corresponding with the Hebrew 53) }-nx, 
comp. Matth. viii. 29; Mark 1. 24) the character of reproof can in 
no wise be removed, although the rebuke is but gentle. After the 
Redeemer was introduced to his sacred office, even the relation to 
his parents (Luke ii. 51), so far as his ministry was concerned, must 
be regarded as dissolved. The son had now become the Lord even 
of the mother, who could secure her own happiness only by believ- 
ing obedience to him. Just because Mary stood consciously in a 
close earthly relationship to Christ, it might be difficult for her to 
understand this higher position, and hence this earnest admonition. 

Ver. 5, 6.—Upon this Mary withdraws, and refers the servants 
to her Divine Son, who, when the hour is come, communicates his 
command, (Καθαρισμός, purifying of hands and of vessels ; comp. 
on Mark vii. 3, ff. The stone ὑδρίαι, water-pots, [723 ἘΞ] appear to 
have been very large, since a metre, according to Eisenschmidt, 


* Does the language “my hour,” οἷο.) necessarily mean more than “I only work at 
the appointed hour (not at any human dictation) ?”—[K. 


Joun II. 7-12. 341 


contains seventy-two flasks. But, as Semler very justly observes, it 
is not said that water was changed into wine in all the pitchers, 
The precision of the narrative renders it in the highest degree prob- 
able that John was an eye-witness.) 

Ver. 7-10.—They now drew out of one (or more) of these ves- 
sels, and the wine was brought to the president of the feast, who 
knew nothing of what had taken place. (This is the only instance 
in which ἀρχετρίκλινος, the superintendent of the feast, synonymous 
with τρικλινάρχης, συμποσιάρχης, occurs in the New Testament.) 
This person, astonished at the strength of the wine, tells the bride- 
groom, that, contrary to custom, he is giving the best last. (Μεθύσ- 
κεσθαι always means, if not exactly to be intoxicated, yet to have 
drunk cepiously. Here, however, the discourse has reference only 
to what was customary in the world, so that no conclusion can be 
drawn from the expression as to the particular marriage at which 
Jesus was present, or as to the use of the wine that he bestowed.) 
In regard to this miracle of Jesus we must, of course, reject in ad- 
vance every view which, contrary to the meaning of the narrator 
(comp. 11. 9 with iv. 46), tends to remove the miraculous clement 
from the story, The transaction before us is strictly parallel with 
those of the feeding of the multitudes. There is here also a sub- 
stratum (water) whose substance is modified. The only correct 
conception of this occurrence is that which supposes a real effective 
influence, which only wrought with accelerated rapidity. Hence 
the Fathers justly observe that here nothing else occurred than 
what is annually displayed in a more gradual development in the 
vine.* In the same way Meyer correctiy understands the miracles. 
And Strauss himself, who at one time could not ridicule it suffi- 
ciently, is now compelled, in his third number of the Streitschriften 
(p. 118), against Bauer, to acknowledge the suitableness of suppos- 
ing an accelerated process of nature. It is self-evident that this 
supposition neither removes the miracle nor explains it naturally ; 
the essence of the miracle consists in Divinely effecting the accelera- 
tion of the natural process ; the form in which the miracle is exhib- 
ited is employed as a more effective medium for its contemplation. 

Ver. 11, 12.—John observes, in conclusion, that this was the 
first miracle (comp. iv. 54) wrought by the Lord for the manifest- 
ing of his glory (δόξα). (With regard to the δόξα, comp. the remarks 
on i. 14) Seyffarth (p. 82) justly observes that the δόξα, glory, 
brightness, is an accessory idea to light. The Logos, the absolute 
Light, radiates lustre (δόξα) from himself. The flesh in which the 
Logos appeared among men, is, as it were, a veiling of the light ; 


* Augustine, in Joan. tr. viii. says: “ipse fecit vinum in nuptiis, qui omni anno hoc 
facit in vitibus.—Illud autem non miramur, quid omni anno fit: assiduitate amisit admi- 
rationem. 


342 Joun II. 11, 12. 


but in the miracles the brightness breaks through the veil, and 
thus reveals ‘the Divine light that is shut up in an unpretending 
form. In the transfiguration of Jesus, the flesh itself appears per- 
fectly illuminated and glorified by the light. Now the circum- 
stance that this was the first miracle of Christ serves in some meas- 
ure to explain the fact that the Evangelist admits into his Gospel 
this in particular, which probably made a peculiarly deep impression 
upon him, although in other respects it must appear of compara- 
tively minor importance to him, because no discourses accompanied 
it. Still the narration of this occurrence on the part of John is 
remarkable, especially as its material nature seems scarcely suited 
to his spirtual character. Nay, the miracle in itself exhibits the 
remarkable phenomenon of a miracle apparently wrought by our 
Saviour without any moral end. ‘True, the disciples believed (7. e., 
increased in faith) by means of it (ver. 11), but this object might 
apparently have been still better attained by means of another 
action uniting real utility with miracle. Both the difficulties— 
that John deemed this particular occurrence so important, and that 
Christ performed the miracle—appear to me to be solved, or at 
least diminished by one observation. The first disciples of Christ 
were, doubtless, all originally disciples of the Baptist. His manner 
of life—a rigid, penitential austerity, and solitary abode in the 
desert—naturally appeared to them the only right one. What a 
contrast for them, when the Messiah, to whom the Baptist himself 
had pointed them, leads them first of all to a marriage! Whilst 
John devoted them to a life of self-denial, Christ conducted them 
to enjoyment. * 

This contrast needed a reconciliation, which was supplied by 
the miracle. Like the immediately following account of the purifi- 
cation of the temple, and the miracle of the fig-tree, this miracle 
has a predominant symbolical aspect, and, regarded as a significant 
act, is found to be both intelligible and in harmony with the gen- 
eral procedure of Christ. All reprehensive judgments that might 
obtrude themselves into the hearts of the strict disciples of John 
then present, were suppressed by the manifestation of the glory of 
the Lord, which shewed them that in Christ there was more than 
John, from whom they had never seen anything similar. In the 
same relation the transaction may have appeared also to the Evan- 
gelist. Those disciples of John whom he had in his eye, in the 
composition of his Gospel, were also inclined to a rigid asceticism, 
and might frequently be scandalized at the freer life of Christians. 


* The Fathers understand the marriage-feast to which Christ went, symbolically, ag 
an image of the inward joy and happiness that Christ imparts to souls, and in which he 
bestows the wine of his spirit—an interpretation very fruitful for the practical treatment 
of the passage. 


Joun II. 13-17. 343 


Hence tnis occurrence in the life of the Lord was to him, as it were, 
an apology for the conduct of Christians, and an indirect declaration 
to the disciples of John that they should not over-estimate their 
asceticism. 

The Evangelist finally remarks that Jesus went with his own* 
from Cana to Capernaum. (Κατέβη, went down, is used because 
Cana was further inland, whereas Capernaum was close to the sea.) 
The chronology, hitherto so exact, here assumes a degree of indefi- 
niteness ; for, with respect to’ the stay of the Redeemer and his 
companions, the Evangelist employs the general phrase: καὶ ἐκεῖ 
ἔμειναν οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας, and they remained there not many days, 
and hence the comparison of John’s narratives with those of the sy- 
noptical writers in reference to the order of succession, must be very 
uncertain. 


§ 4. Jesus Puriries THE TEMPLE. 
(John ii, 13-22.) 


John opens this section with the statement, that the Redeemer 
went from Galilee up to Jerusalem at the feast of Passover. From 
this we may, in some measure, deduce the time of the baptism of 
Jesus, and the temptation that succeeded it; but still, as it respects 
the chronology of the evangelic history at large, little is gained 
from this date, because the synoptical authors (comp. the Comment. 
on Matth. iv. 12) give absolutely no information concerning the first 
public appearance of Christ. It is only on account of the chrono- 
logical limitations which follow, that this passage is of importance 
to John. 

Ver. 14-16.—Concerning the fact of the purification of the 
temple, and the relation of this occurrence to that narrated Matth. 
xxi. 12, ff (comp. the Comment. on Matth. xxi. 12), what is needful 
has already been said. John gives the citation (ver. 16) merely 
from memory, and hence the variation, The thought as given by 
him is milder than that conveyed by the synoptical Evangelists, as 
in fact John’s general representation of the act of purifying the 
temple assumes a softer form. 

Ver. 17—The Evangelist adds the remark that the disciples 
hereupon remembered a scriptural phrase, viz., Ps. xix. 9, It is 
not said whether this occurred to the disciples immediately at the 
time of the transaction, or later ; but, according to the period given 
ver, 22, ὅτε ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, when he was risen from the dead, the 
latter is more probable, especially since the disciples did not, in the 
first instance, know how to understand the representation of the 


* Concerning the brothers of the Lord, comp. the Comment. on Matth, xii. δῦ, 


344 i Joun II. 18-21. 


death of the Messiah. With regard to Ps. lxix. itself, it is so 
frequently quoted in the New Testament (comp. John xy. 25, xix. 
28 ; Matth. xxvii. 34, 48 ; Acts i. 20), that it cannot well be denied 
that it was interpreted in the time of Christ as Messianic. Hence 
a mere accommodation of this passage, on account of a similarity 
of thought, or a possible application to the existing circumstances 
is not to be supposed. (Comp. the Comm. on Matth. i. 22, concern- 
ing ἵνα πληρωθῇ, and the review of Hengstenberg’s Christologie in 
Tholuck’s liter, Anzeiger, 1831.) The fact that the Rabbins made 
such use of citations from the Old Testament, can be no proof that 
the authors of the New Testament did so; on the contrary, the 
Holy Spirit, who inspired the latter, caused them to apprehend the 
Scriptures of the Old Testament in their-real, spiritual import, and 
so to treat them. (On this subject comp. the excellent remarks in 
Billroth’s Erkl. der Briefe an die Korinthier, Lpz. 1833, p. 13, ff.) 
Until the Old Testament life is viewed as an organic whole, pene- 
trated by the same Spirit that prevails in the New Testament, by 
whom the forms that appear complete and perfect in the latter are 
foreshadowed in the former, the use of the Old Testament passages 
in the New Testament wiil always remain obscure.* 

The psalm describes David as the representative of the Divine 
truth on earth, and as the individual upon whom fell all the rage 
of its opponents. The circumstances of the case thus make David 
a type of the Messiah, and, in accordance with such a typical view, 
the authors of the New Testament refer passages of the psalm to 
Jesus. The meaning of =:nbzx ya neipos, the zeal of thine house, 
etc., in reference to the event that has been related, is easily under- 
stood. It obviously expressed the ardent zeal of the Redeemer for 
the purification of religion and its sacred institutions, while it also 
intimated the opposition that malice would raise against it ; and 
from this opposition arose the danger to the person of the Lord. 
(The reading κατέφαγε is plainly derived from the LXX. ; in the 
text of John the reading καταφάγεται is doubtless the correct one.) 

Ver. 18-21—The following words which John connects with 
the purification of the temple are remarkable. The Jews (in their 
representatives, the Pharisees) asked Jesus for a proof of his author- 
ity by a sign (σημεῖον). (With respect to this, compare what has 
been remarked on John i. 19.) Such a question certainly might 
have been induced by the previous extraordinary proceedings, but 
it arose from unbelief ; hence Jesus, instead of giving them a sign, 
answers: ‘Destroy this temple, and I will build it up again 
in three days.” (Λποκρίνεσθαι, according to the Hebrew 722.— 
Ἐγείρειν --- on.) The Jews referred these words to the temple, in 


* Comp. the valuable first supplementary note in Tholuck’s Comment. on the Epistle 
to the Romans. 


Joun II. 18-21, 345 


the vestibule in which they were then standing ; but John explains 
them as alluding to the temple of the Lord’s body, and refers them 
to the resurrection of Jesus. The idea of the Jews—that the allu- 
sion was to the external temple—was rejected by nearly all the 
ancient expositors, because they considered that, in that case, John 
must have erred in his interpretation of the obscure words of Jesus. 
But the hypothesis that Jesus, in using these words, had in view 
only the reference to his resurrection was also encumbered by con- 
siderable difficulties. The circumstance that in this passage it 18 
said “TI will raise it up,” whilst in the New Testament the resur- 
rection of Christ is always referred to the Father, was indeed the 
least of these difficulties ; for, chap. x. 18, Jesus speaks in a similar 
manner: ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν λαβεῖν τὴν ζωήν, 1 have power, etc. 
But, according to this hypothesis, the mistake of the Jews is inex- 
plicable ; for if the Redeemer wished to be understood in his words, 
and uttered them dece7eKéc—pointing to his body—it is inconceiv- 
able how the Jews could think of the temple. Moreover, a refer- 
ence to the death of Christ, expressed distinctly and so as to be 
generally understood, in his discourses at this very early period, 
appears scarcely fitting, since it is towards the end of the Lord’s 
public ministry that we first perceive in them the intimations of his 
violent end ; and a reference to the remote future, instead of the 
present, which the Jews requested, does not seem appropriate. Es- 
pecially, the challenge to the Jews to cause the dissolution of his 
body, is hardly consistent with the declarations of Christ in other 
places respecting his death. Still, the summons to Judas, chap. xiii. 
27, to accomplish his deed, is assuredly very similar. If, therefore, 
the reference of the words to the body ought to be regarded as the 
first and only one, then it would be necessary at least to say (with 
Luther, Tittman, &.) that John has not correctly placed this occur- 
rence and the accompanying discourses, since it belongs, as the 
synoptical authors assign it, to the end of Christ’s ministry. This 
might appear favoured by the circumstance that, in the impeach- 
ment of Christ before the Sanhedrim, mention was made of this 
declaration ; for reference would more naturally be made to what he 
had recently spoken than to what he had said years before. But 
the chronological accuracy of John speaks too strongly against this 
supposition. 

These difficulties, associated with either interpretation, have, in- 
duced some very distinguished inquirers (Herder, Liicke, Bleek, 
etc.) to regard the temple as a designation of the collective Jewish 
worship. The following would then resuit as the sense: ‘ Even if 
the whole order of the Jewish worship be discontinued, I will in a 
short time found a new one.” 

But Tholuck, in opposition to this, observes, that the Jews, by 


346 | Jee π  αδ:θλ: 


whom Christ surely must have wished to be understood, could not 
possibly have discovered such a meaning in the words: for it is 
contradicted particularly by this expression ναὸς οὗτος, this temple, 
which indicates a reference to the visible temple. Further, the 
ἐγερῶ αὐτόν, I will raise it up, affords good ground for question, 
since Jesus, in fact, did not reconstruct the old constitution of the 
Jewish worship. And, finally, according to the above acceptation 
of the words, “in three days” can only be taken in the general sig- 
nification ‘ shortly,” “‘ soon.” On this subject, however, we have 
already said what is necessary at Luke xii. 32; and Tholuck ex- 
presses himself in like manner (in his Comment. on the same pas- 
sage), with reference to Hosea vi. 2, which is adduced as an argument 
for the assertion that ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις, in three days, stands equiva- 
lent to εὐθέως, “shortly.” The phrase “ two or three days” is thus 
substituted for the formula “ in three days,” which latter can have 
no other sense than that which lies on the surface of the words. (In 
Matth. xxvi. 61, Mark xiv. 58, δεὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν stands in a somewhat 
different relation, ὦ. 6. it refers to a continuous act ;—here, that of 
building “‘ three days through without intermission.”) In this 
state of things, the above expedient appears untenable, especially 
since its adoption at once involves an erroneous conception on the 
part of the Evangelist. 

It seems to me, therefore, that the difficulty can only be relieved 
by the admission of a double sense in this passage.* In the jirst 
place, the passage is quite parallel with Matth. xii. 38, xvi. 4, and 
is a refusal of the request for a sign. Christ knew the insincerity 
of the heart from which the request proceeded, and therefore refused 
the miracle. This denial in the answer of Christ lies mainly in the 
antithesis between λύσατε and ἐγερῶ, which has been entirely over- 
looked. Jesus first demands of the Jews something impossible, 
and with that connects his miracle, which by this connexion shall 
itself become an impossibility. ‘First break ye down the temple, 
then I will rebuild it!” Thus the imperative is doubtless to ‘be 
taken as making a challenge,} and ναός in this connexion is to be 

* After a renewed consideration of all the arguments that favour the other interpre- 
tations, 1 am confirmed in this view. All that has been adduced by Tholuck and Kling 
(Stud. 1836, No. 1, p. 127, ff.) in support of the justness of the Evangelist’s interpreta- 
tion, and by Liicke and Bleek (loc. cit.. p. 442, ff.) in favour of that construction of the 
passage, which refers it to the discontinuance of the national worship, appears to me to 
possess only relative truth. Itis only the blending of the two that exhausts the extra- 
ordinarily pregnant declaration of the Lord. 

+ Liicke is of opinion that it merely administers rebuke: “ Only go on thus profaning 
the temple!” which does not correspond with the connexion, and presupposes the cor- 
rectness of the reference to the Divine worship. De Wette, against all laws of language, 
takes the imperative as hypothetic: “Jf ye break down this temple, then,” and so 


forth. This imperative never thus occurs; in the passage adduced by him (Matth. xii. 
33), it is to be understood simply ag making a challenge. 


Joun II. 18-21. 347 


understood as referring to the visible temple. The passayes Matth. 
xxvi. 61; Mark xiv, 58, appear to me to afford indisputable evidence 
that such a signification is to be received as the primary meaning 
of the words before us. The witnesses before the high-priest re- 
ferred to this language of Jesus. Of them, however, in the first 
place, it is said that they did not agree in their statements, although 
no particulars are given as to how far they differed ; and, secondly, 
they are both called false witnesses (Matth. xxvi. 60). Their false- 
hood can only lie in their saying that Jesus had declared he would 
break down the temple, and in three days he would it up again, 
whereas he had said, “break #e it down, then will I build it 
up.” By this apparently unimportant alteration, the sense of the 
whole declaration was inverted, and Christ appeared as a wan- 
ton despiser of the sanctuary, who would like to destroy it ; whilst, 
on the contrary, his own words represented his agency as repairing 
all destruction, But, apart from this distortion, there is nothing 
false in the words, and if no stress should be laid upon it, it does 
not appear how the witnesses could be called false. (Although 
Mark xiv. 58, in his review of this impeachment, makes the an- 
tithesis between vad¢ κειροποίητος, a temple made with hands, and 
ἀχειροποίητος, not made with hands, Tholuck certainly is right in 
maintaining that this does not point to a spiritual interpretation ; 
yet still I cannot admit with him that they thought of a temple 
coming down ready-made from heaven. The expression διὰ τριῶν 
ἡμερῶν indicates a continuous activity, and [John 11. 20] the antith- 
esis to forty-six years, points out a supposed great acceleration of 
the process of building. Thus they may have thought that Jesus 
would join the stones together without manual labour, by magic 
power. At any rate, their notions did not go beyond the outward 
temple.)—Jn the second place, the words of the Lord—as is fre- 
quently the case with brief, enigmatical expressions—contain, in 
addition to the allusion intended for the many, a latent, deeper 
meaning, which did not occur even to the disciples till after the re- 
surrection.* According to this, the temple signified the body of 


* The objection of Kling, that this hypothesis appears incompatible with the Divino 
simplicity of the Lord and of his words, is unfounded. The Divine simplicity of Christ 
co-exists with a copiousness of ideas, which discovers itself in words having manifold 
references. Why should we not allow to Christ that which we observe in the sayings 
of men of genius? I do not deny the unity of the meaning of his declarations; I only 
maintain the multiplicity of their relations. Meyer's interpretation of this difficult 
passage is peculiar. He thinks that Christ said to the Jews, “kill me, and in three 
days I will rise again!” and said it in the firm belief that if it should come to pass 
that the Jews should kill him, God would reanimate him. In this case the passage is 
a prophecy in regard to the resurrection; that which did not then take place, was ful- 
filled subsequently. The view certainly has plausibility; but it then remains uns 
explained how the Jews, upon the utterance of such words, could think of the stone 
temple. 


348 Joun II. 22, 23. 


the Lord, which the Jews caused to be nailed to the cross, but in 
which Jesus arose again on the third day. This sign also quite 
corresponded with the sign of Jonah ; for, like this latter, it was 
invisible, it was imparted only to faith, and it rebuked the sin of 
those who then believed ; while those Jews who asked for signs 
desired only an exciting feast for the eyes. (Comp. the Comm. on 
Matth, xii. 40.) 

As regards, finally, the forty-six years mentioned John 11. 20, in 
which the temple was built, the reckoning refers to the rebuilding of 
the temple after the exile. Herod began it in the eighteenth year 
of his reign (Joseph. Arch. xv. 11), but it was not finished till a few 
years before the destruction of the city. Probably the building was 
often interrupted, and when these words were spoken, a large prin- 
cipal edifice was just completed, forty-six years after the beginning 
of the embellishment. 

Ver. 22.—There is further something remarkable in the obser- 
vation of John, that after the resurrection (with regard to ἐγείρεσθαι 
éx νεκρῶν comp. the Comm. on Matth, xxii. 29) the apostles believed 
not only this declaration of Jesus (in its deeper sense), but also the 
Scripture. The hypothesis of Dr. Paulus, who by ‘‘Scripture” 
(γραφή) understands some small composition which gave an account 
of the occurrence just reported, does not deserve a serious refuta- 
tion. Liicke very justly appeals to John xx. 9, for a proof that the 
Old Testament is intended. True, direct prophecies concerning 
the resurrection of Christ are not contained in the Old Testament, 
except in Psa, xvi. 10; but according to Luke xxiv. 26,27; Acts 
ii, 24, ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 4, it plainly appears that the apostles found 
typical prophecies of this fact in the Old Testament, Probably the 
history of Jonah, and perhaps Hos. vi. 2, were the passages which 
they so understood. Finally, the term γραφή, Scripture, evidently 
is not to be understood as meaning only the prophecies concern- 
ing the resurrection in the Old Testament, but the sense of the 
words is to be taken thus: ‘through the fulfilment of the single 
prophecy, their faith in the divinity of the Scripture as a whole was 
confirmed,” 


§ 5. Tue Visir or Nicopemus. 
(John ii. 23—iii. 21.) 


Only one more occurrence is given us, in addition to what has 
just been considered, out of what took place during the Redeemer’s 
sojourn in Jerusalem at the first feast of the Passover, viz., the visit 
of Nicodemus.* It is obvious that this visit would be of itnportance 


* Comp. Scholl's Treatise on this section, in Klaiber’s Stud. vol. v. No. 1, and Knarp’s 
interpretation in his Scriptis varii argumenti, Hale, 1805. 


Joun II. 23-25; III. 1, 2. 349 


to the Evangelist only on account of the discourses which the 
Lord held upon this occasion ; these discourses, however, stand in 
the most intimate connexion with the main design of the Gospel, 
and form, as it were, a commentary on Johni.17. They exhibit 
the ministry of Christ in relation to the Jaw :—whilst the latter 
only prunes away the impure excrescences of sin, Christ gives a 
new heart and a new mind, creates a new man born of God. 
Hence in the words iii. 16-21, which the Evangelist connects 
with the discourse of Christ, he gives warning (primarily to the 
disciples of John) that he who, through unbelief, excludes himself 
from Jesus, the source of salvation, will assuredly trifle away his 
salvation. 

Ver, 23-25.—In these verses, which form the transition to what 
follows, John briefly informs us that the entire impression which 
Jesus produced during his presence in Jerusalem was very favour- 
able. Many believed in him on account of his miracles. But the 
Divine power of the Saviour discerned the inner character of men 
(τὸ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ = ὁ ow ἄνθρωπος in the language of Paul, in opposi- 
tion to the external, visible workings of the character, which mani- 
fest themselves in word and deed), and hence he did not take them 
into close connexion with himself. It would certainly be a mistake 
to believe that Jesus held himself at a distance from these persons, 
because he discerned insincerity in their assumed faith ; on the con- 
trary, we are merely to regard them as persons easily affected by 
what was good, while in like manner they were again easily deter- 
mined by evil. With the spurious open friends of Christ is con- 
trasted, chap. i. 1, ff, a secret virtuous adherent. The former, 
therefore, were not so much malicious as superficial, shallow, 
wavering men ; the sensible impressions resulting from his miracles, 
combined with the influence exercised upon them by the power of 
the truth, inclined them towards the Holy One ; but so soon as the 
full energy of evil met them again, it overcame them. Accordingly 
here the idea of “ faith” is the ordinary one, only that in the pas- 
sage before us the term designates the most general reception of 
Divine influence into the mind, the lowest step of faith, which may 
be associated with great impurity. 

Chap. i. 1, 2.—Nobler'and more profound than those who have 
been described, was Nicodemus; hence the Saviour willingly led 
him more deeply into the truth, and sought to win him entirely 
for the kingdom of God. His name, has been compared with 
the Hebrew ©7373, or y"7p2, which would appear to have been formed 
after the Greek mould. But it might also be supposed that Nuxé- 
δημος --- Νικόλαος, a translation of the Hebrew 5x2. (Comp. Rev. 
ii, 14, 15.) As to his person, Nicodemus was an ἄρχων (7. 6. an 
officer of the Sanhedrim = »», Compare John vii. 50, ff; xix. 38, 1) 


350 Joun III. 3-5. 


The Talmudists mention a rich Sanhedrist, Nicodemus, whose 
proper name was Bonai, and who is said to have lived about the 
time of Christ ; but his identity with the follower of Jesus cannot 
be ascertained with certainty. To us, the man’s outward character- 
istics are not so important as his inward state ;, a just apprehension 
of which is necessary in order to understand that which follows. 
The visit of Nicodemus at night is doubtless to be regarded as the 
consequence of his fear of man; that this was his temptation is 
plainly shewn by a comparison of John xix. 38 with ver. 39 ; both 
Joseph of Arimathza and Nicodemus were timid followers of 
Jesus.* However, this timidity was no positive transgression of law 
(on which account Jesus does not rebuke it, and still less does John in 
the words, iii. 19, ff), but only an expression of that general sinful 
nature which, in the probably weak and anxious constitution of 
Nicodemus, took this particular form. Because, therefore he was 
on the whole turned towards the light, the Lord shewed him the 
way in which we may become free, not merely from a single mani- 
festation of sin, but from the entire sinful nature of the old man with 
all its manifestations. Susceptible of that which was holy, he had 
found its essence in the Saviour; and so the miracles of Jesus in- 
dicated to him that Jesus was one sent by God. The miracles thus 
accomplished for him their own proper end—viz., they proved Jesus 
to be a messenger of God. Whether he regarded Christ as the 
Messiah cannot be determined from the words ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας, 
thou art come from God, since every prophet who had the gift of 
miracles as the proof of his office, was looked upon as sent from 
God. If, however, he did see the Messiah in Jesus, he certainly did 
not recognize in him the Divine nature, for with such a recognition, 
the wholly general expression ἐὰν μὴ ἡ ὁ Θεὸς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, unless God be 
with him—which may also be said respecting the relation of every 
pious person to God—would not be at all consistent. We best con- 
ceive therefore of Nicodemus, as an earnest, true-minded man, who 
stood on the level of the law, and who from the Saviour’s miracles 
recognized in him a higher element, but knew not rightly what 
opinion to form respecting him. ΤῸ gain sure information on the 
subject, he came to Jesus in such a manner as not to expose himself 
to the Jews, but so that in the stillness of night he might enjoy un- 
interrupted conversation ; and Jesus now opened to his mind a new 
spiritual world. 

Ver, 3-5.—The address of Nicodemus is evidently reported in an 


* It might indeed be said that because it is stated only of Joseph, that he was afraid 
of the Jews, another cause is to be supposed in the case of Nicodemus as accounting for 
his visit at night. But what is added, chap. xix. 39, has not so much the appearance 
of being different from the statement in ver. 38, as that of being designed to render the 
latter more determinate. 


Joun IIT. 3-5. 351 


abbreviated form, and in particular, it wants the very question to 
which the answer of the Lord refers. It is doubtless related to the 
kingdom of God, which was so ardently longed for by the Jews of 
that time, and to which Nicodemus, as a son of Abraham, rightly 
deemed himself called. The admonition of Jesus, that in order to 
enter this kingdom, it is necessary to be born again (γεννηθῆναι 
dvwbev), is then perfectly appropriate. This phrase—as will be im- 
mediately shewn—could not be entirely unknown, and therefore in 
itself incomprehensible to the learned Jew; but in reference to 
himself, it must have been obscure to him, Hence the question in 
ver. 4, which—as Tholuck justly remarks—is only to be understood 
thus: ‘‘ That expression surely cannot be taken in its literal sense, 
for how shall I, in my circumstances, apply it to myself ?”* (Used 
in reference to a Gentile it would have been perfectly intelligible to 
him.) Now, first, as to the meaning of the expression βασιλεία τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, kingdom of God, in the language of John, it does not essen- 
tially differ from what is usual elsewhere in the New Testament Ὁ 
only that with John the ideal aspect of the kingdom of God prevails 
in his Gospel, in the Revelation its external aspect. Hence, unless 
circumstances—-as in this instance the adherence of Nicodemus to 
Jewish views—led John to decide upon a different course, he used, 
instead of ‘‘ seeing or entering into the kingdom of God” the more 
spiritual phrase ἔχειν ζωὴν αἰώνιον, have eternal life. (Comp. iii. 15, 
16.) The reason of this is found (comp, the Introduction, ὃ 2, 3), 
partly in his peculiar character, but especially in the design of his 
Gospel. He wrote for an intellectual tendency, which dreaded no- 
thing so much as what savoured of materialism ; and he kept this 
partiality for the ideal in view that he might gain it completely 
over to the truth of Christianity—well knowing that when the sub- 
jects of this bias yielded themselves to the influences of Christianity, 
its spirit would instruct them concerning the true relation of spirit 
and matter, in the just union of which, true realism consists, this 
being equally remote from idealism and materialism. Where such 
a special reference was absent—as in the Revelation—there the 


* De Wette supposes Nicodemus to have understood the words γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν as 
signifying corporeal birth, in order that he may then be able to observe: “ Such obdu- 
rate ignorance in a Jewish teacher of the law is strange, and, indeed, improbable; and 
since it corresponds with a prevailing type of dialogues reported by John, it may be 
placed to the account of the narrator’s representation.” (I!) As if the sequel did not 
speak but too decidedly for the justness of John’s description! The obduracy of the 
Jews induced them altogether to despise Christ and his salvation; and is it improbable 
that this manifested itself in the life-time of the Redeemer? Or do not the synoptical 
Evangelists represent them as equally obdurate? Moreover, in relation to Nicodemus, 
the difficulty that leads De Wette to suppositions so inadmissible, and so destructive of 
the Divine authority of the Evangelist, is purely self-created. 

+ Compare the development of the idea in the Comm. on Matth. iii. 2; and also 
Tholuck in his Comm. on the Sermon on the Mount. Matth. v. 8. 


352 Joun III. 3-5. 


Evangelist even strongly declared the. necessity that the inward 
should come forth from its inwardness in substantial presence. As 
therefore it was necessary that the Word should become flesh, so 
was the kingdom of the Spirit yet to attain dominion in external 
manifestation. 

The only thing, then, remaining for explanation, is the expres- 
sion γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν, to be born again (or from ‘above), instead of 
which we have in ver. 5 the words: γεννηθῆναι ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύμα- 
τος, born of water and spirit. (ΓΛνωθεν is to be taken in the signifi- 
cation of δεύτερον [ver, 4], méduv—as παλιγγενεσία [Tit. 111, 5] also 
shews—and not as meaning from “‘above.”*) The Rabbins use 
this term in reference to proselytes, whom they call ‘‘ a new crea- 
ture,” mith m2. But this designation of proselytes, according to 
the express interpretation of the Rabbins, refers only to their altered 
external relations. Nicodemus might therefore well ask—how can 
such a term apply to me (and all Jews, ver. 7, δεῖ bu ἃς γεννηθῆναι 
ἄνωθεν) ὃ We are Abraham’s seed, and to it belongs the promise ! 
This leads the Redeemer to represent the nature of this new birth 
not as external, but as internal, and spiritual. Some difficulty, 
however, is occasioned by the circumstance that the γέννησις, birth, 
is traced not only to the spirit but also to the water, whilst immedi- 
ately afterwards (ver. 6 and 8) only spirit is mentioned. The ordi- 
nary interpretations of this difficult passage afford very little satis- 
faction. Grotius takes it as ἕν διὰ δυοῖν, “ to be born of Spirit, which 
like water purifies.” But this interpretation is founded upon the 
false opinion that reference is here only to moral purification. This 
was just the view of Nicodemus, to which Christ opposed the crea- 
tion of a new, higher being. Teller explains it by ὕδωρ πνευματικόν, 
spiritual water, and understands it as meaning the reception of the 
doctrine of the Gospel. But the reception of a doctrine is an act 
of the already existing man, which no one can call a new birth 
without the strongest hyberbole. Nor can I any more admit, 
with Tholuck, that - the mention of water was only intended to a 
Nicodemus in understanding the phrase, and to indicate its ref- 
erence to baptism.t The reference of the expression to bap- 

* In ὠναγεννάω, 1 Pet. i. 3, 23, the ἀνά has only the meaning of repetition. [I think 
ἄνωθεν better taken from above. This accords best with John’s favourite mode of re- 
presenting the new birth, “born of God,” “born of the Spirit,” as at ver. 5. The use of 
δεύτερον, ver. 4, does not indicate that ἄνωθεν == δεύτερον. Rather the reverse. Nico- 
demus is stumbled at this doctrine of “being born,” and asks if it is explicable by a 
“second” natural birth. The only serious objection to this interpretation is, that it would 


seem impossible for Nicodemus to misunderstand it with that addition. But Nicodemus’ 
attention was fastened on the “being born,” and this he was utterly unable to compre 
bend.—[K. 

+ That the idea of regeneration was unintelligible to Nicodemus is seen, if the ex- 
pression be taken in its specific narrower sense—yviz., as the communication of a higher 
life and consciousness, which can only be effected by the Holy Ghost, the requisite con- 


Joun IIT. 6. 353 


> 


tism* (especially according to Tit. iii. 5) certainly is clear ; the only 
question is, how this is to be taken ; for the view of Knapp,t+ that 
baptism is to be understood as καϑαρισμός, purification, is evidently 
unsatisfactory, although he apprehends the idea of purification more 
profoundly than Grotius. Liicke follows Knapp in the acceptation 
of ὕδωρ, water. In my opinion, the true meaning of the passage is 
best supplied by the following verse. 

Ver. 6.—Here, in order to demolish the pride of Nicodemus in 
his corporeal descent from Abraham, the jlesh, as generating, is 
placed in contrast with the spirit, as also generating, and the words 
of the Lord express the simple, easily intelligible sentiment, that 
what is begotten carries within itself the nature of that which begat 
it. It is plain that here the idea of generation is viewed profoundly, 
as the communication of being to another ; but no one can impart 
anything which is not contained in his own nature, and accordingly 
from flesh as the antithesis to spirit, nothing spiritual can proceed. 
Further (comp. the remarks on John 1. 14), σάρξ, flesh, is not to be 
interchanged with σῶμα, body, or with the dead substance of the 
body, ἡ. e., the κρέας ; but it is to be taken in combination with 
ψυχή, soul, in which combination alone procreation is possible to 
it. But in contrast with πνεῦμα, spirit, it is the natural, sensuous. 
life subject to the perishableness and sin of the world (κόσμος), whilst 
πνεῦμα, points out the nature of the higher imperishable life.t Hence 
the expression ἐκ πνεύματος πνεῦμα, from spirit, spirit, plainly means. 
‘that which is imperishable can only have its origin from the foun- 
tain itself of imperishable life.” 

Thus understood, the ἐκ has its sharply defined meaning, and 
because the same preposition is connected ver. 5, with the ὕδωρ, water, 
this must also have its discoverable relation to the γέννησις, The 


dition of whose outpouring upon mankind was the glorification of Christ (John vii. 39). 
In this narrower sense, regeneration could not be ascribed to any Old Testament saint ; 
although, indeed, important transformations (which might be called regeneration in the: 
wider sense, and which, by the impartation of new names, are in fact announced as types 
of regeneration) did occur in some individuals, as, for example, Abram and Jacob, who: 
were therefore called Abraham and Israel.) Comp. the remarks Matth. xi. 11.) 

* As John vi. is a commentary, or, if it be preferred, a prophetic lesson, on the words 
of the institution which contain the mystery of the supper, so is John iii. upon the bap- 
tismal formula which contains the mystery of baptism. 

+ See the discussion of this subject in his Scriptis var. arg. p. 199, seq. 

¢ Clemens Alex. says: ἰσχὺς τοῦ λόγου τὸ πνεῦμα, ὡς αἷμα σαρκός, the strength of the 
word is the spirit, as blood is of flesh. In other words, the creative element in regenera- 
tion is the Divine being itself operating through the Logos (comp. John i. 13, ἐκ Θεοῦ 
ἐγεννήθησαν) so that we may say, the new birth comes to pass from God, through the 
Logos, in the Spirit. The Letter to Diognetus (cap. 11) describes regeneration as a self- 
reproduction of the Logos: ὁ λόγος πάντοτε νέος ἐν ἁγίων καρδίαις γεννώμενος. The Logos 
reproduces himself in each soul, as the spark elicits the flame in a kindling substance, 
According to James i. 15, the development in evil is a kind of new birth, the end of 
which, however, is death. 


Vou. I1.—23 


354 Joun III. 6. 


two parallels, Tit. iii, 5; 1 Pet. 1. 23, facilitate the interpretation 
here. In the latter the λόγος ζῶν ( = πνεῦμα) is placed, as an incor- 
ruptible (ἀφθαρτή), in opposition to the corruptible seed (σπορὰ 
φθα) τή) and in the sequel, ver. 24, flesh is described as the corrupt- 
ible * Accordingly the comparison of regeneration with the rise of 
a new being here stands forth in the most distinct manner. But 
Tit. iii. 5 is the only passage in the New Testament where, in such 
close connexion with the renewing work of the Sprit (ἀνακαίνωσις 
_ πνεύματος), mention is made of water (λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας), and 
that with evident reference to baptism ; although in Ephes. v. 26, 
λουτρὸν τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι, the washing of water by the word, the 
word also unquestionably signifies the operation of the Spirit. (The 
remarkable passage 1 John v. 6, 8 [comp. John xix. 34], requires a 
special consideration by itself.) Now if Gen. i. 2 be adduced as a 
description of the process of creation, where the Spirit is represented 
as moving upon the water, an interpretation is suggested for the 
passage, as follows. The ideas of birth and of creation are closely re- 
lated (on which account also the regenerated person is called καινὴ 
κτίσις, a new creation, 2 Cor. v. 17) ; as in the creation the water 
appears as the material that 18 moulded, and the Spirit as he who 
exerts the plastic power, so also in the γεννηθῆναι ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύ- 
ματος, birth from water and spirit, the Spirit is the creative prin- 
ciple of the regeneration, while the water is the feminine principle 
of the same,} that element of the soul which is purified in sincere 
repentance, as it were the mother of the new man. Accordingly, 
without changing the idea, it might even have been said : ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ 
πνεύματος, of soul and spirit. The ἐξ ὕδατος, of water, simply indi- 
cates that it is not the soul as such, but the penitent soul, in which 
regeneration can result.{ In the interpretation of this important 
passage, considerable aid may be derived from the saying of Paul, 
1 Cor. x. 2: πάντες εἰς τὸν Μωὐσῆν ἐβαπτίσαντο ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ καὶ ἐν TH 


* Also James i. 18, the λόγος ἀληθείας appears as the principle, so to speak, impreg- 
nating the soul with higher power. 

+ Comp. in Meyer’s Blitt. far hoh. Wahrh. pt. ii. p. 76, ff, the treatise on some signifi- 
cations of the word water in the Holy Scriptures. 

1 In several passages of Holy Scripture, regeneration is compared to creation, par+ 
ticularly in Rom. iv. 17; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Ephes. ii. 10; and many have derived a just in- 
sight into this parallel from experience. Thus sings a Christian poet:— 

“From nothing, Lord, thou mad’st the world, so let me nothing be, 

And thence a something after thine own image form! 

By nature I am like the waste and gloomy earth— 

Oh that my eyes and heart with tears would overflow ; 

And then might thy Good Spirit, these sad waters hov'ring o’er, 

Reanimate my lifeless heart with light and strength!” 
Tears are the analogous visible expression of the soul dissolving in the water of baptism, 
over which the regenerating Spirit of God moves; and regeneration is a spiritual pro- 
cess of creation, which is perfected in degrees similar to those in which the Genesis, the 
outward ytysical creation, was developed. 


Joun IIL. 7, 8. 355 


θαλάσσῃ, all were baptized into Moses, etc. The cloud here—as the 
column of cloud and fire, the symbol of the Divine presence—signifies 
the Spirit, and the sea, means the water. The passage through the 
Red Sea is to the Apostle an act of birth, a passage from an imperfect 
condition into one nearer to perfection ; the death of the old, the birth 
of the new. ‘To every new formation, however, belong two powers, 
the creative ener gy, and the substratum on which it operates. The 
same is involved in the parallel of the deluge with baptism, 1 Pet. 11, 
20, 21. (Comp. Rom. vi. 4 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; Col. ii, 12.) Hence it 18 
correct here to understand a reference to Ἰ δηλ though that refer- 
ence is not to the sacrament, but to the tdea of baptism (comp. the 
remarks on John vi. 51): and this is a symbolical mode of expressing 
the inward occurrence of penitence in the soul,* which, in its neces- 
sary connexion with faith, forms the negative requisite to regenera- 
tion—susceptibility of the operation of the Spirit. Purification is 
thus only an effect of regeneration ; the essence of the latter is a 
mysterious union of the powers of the world to come with the soul, 
which is naturally as capable of being purified by the Divine light, 
as of being obscured by the darkness that rules in the world, accord- 
ing to the inclination of the free will towards the one or the other 
element. It is upon the surrender of man to the world of light and 
its powers that he first arrives at true being and consciousness ; he 
becomes a son or man of God (John i.13; 1 Tim, vi. 11). For 
God is the absolute Spirit (John iv. 24), and those begotten of the 
Spirit (γεννητοὶ πνεύματος) are == those begotten of God (γεννητοὶ ἐκ 
Θεοῦ, Matth. xi. 11; John i. 13). Now this higher stage of life is 
unfolded by the New Testament ; the Old Testament merely awakens 
the susceptibility of it. Hence the prophets promise a new heart 
(Jerem, xxxi. 33 ; Ezek. xviii. 31; xxxvi. 26) at the coming of the 
Messiah ; and accordingly the pious of the Old Testament may at 
the most be regarded as persons who, through a powerful change in 
their life, often marked by a new name, typified regeneration ; 
whilst this regeneration itself remains a pure prerogative of the 
New Covenant. (Comp. the Comm. on Matth. xi. 11.) Yet its 
essence cannot be regarded as consisting in man’s reception of ἃ ten- 
dency opposed to his nature, so that John should become a Peter. 
and Melancthon a Luther; in that case God, who also created 
the natural man, would contradict himself. Regeneration is rather 
a purifying and invigoration of the natural man, through the im- 
partation of a totally new principle of life, which unites with what 
still remains in fallen man that is allied to divinity.t+ 


* Comp. in the Old Testament such passages as Ezek. xxxvi. 25; Zech. xiii. 1, The 
baptism of Jesus itself forms a sublime analogy to this. 

+ ‘‘ Born of water and the Spirit,” denotes, I think, born of water symbolically in bap- 
tism (mentioned first because Nicodemus must have known John’s baptism) and of the 
Spirit efficiently, without which the other were a nullity.—[K. 


356 Joun III. 7-12. 


Ver. 7, 8.—That now such a change is possible, awakens the 
astonishment of Nicodemus. The Redeemer assists him by a simile 
drawn from nature. We are acquainted with the effects of the 
wind, but the secret causes of its rise, and its course, we know not. 
(That πνεῦμα here is to be referred to the natural phenomenon of 
wind, and not to the Spirit, is rendered decidedly certain by the 
comparison, and by the expression φωνὴν αὐτοῦ.) In like mapner 
the powers of the invisible world act mysteriously ; he who has not 
experienced its effects, believes not in its power. 

Ver. 9, 10.—Up to this point it cannot be said that Nicodemus, 
in his conversation with Christ, betrayed either arrogance or unbe- 
lief ; but the following answer, and the words in which Jesus replies, 
shew that these lay at the bottom of his heart. The words them- 
selves (πῶς δύναται ταῦτα γενέσθαι, how can these things be 7) might 
proceed from a believing though inquisitive mind (comp. Luke i. 34, 
where Mary utters the same expression) ; but the reprimand of 
Jesus does not permit this supposition. ‘The reference to the func- 
tion of Nicodemus as a teacher, on the one hand, serves to humble 
him,* and on the other, represents Jesus as the Teacher of teach- 
ers, the possessor of the highest knowledge of matters pertaining to 
the spiritual world. It might be asked, how could the Redeemer 
suppose a knowledge of regeneration even in a Master in Israel ? 
Doubtless on account of the analogy involved in the relation of the 
heathen to the ancient economy, which, taken together with the in- 
timations in the Old Testament (Ezek. xxxvi. 25 ; Zech. xii. 1), 
indicated the necessity of a similar change of heart in the Israelites 
that they might enter the kingdom of God. But the better reply 
is, that the καὶ ταῦτα ob γινώσκεις should not be translated, ‘‘ And 
thou knowest not this P” but ‘ And thou comprehendest not this ?” 
Thus regeneration also remains according to the words of Christ, 
something new, and the sense is, ‘‘ Thou understandest not the inti- 
mations of the Old Testament ; hence the law has not fulfilled its 
design in thee, no true repentance is awakened in thee, otherwise the 
need of a totally new birth would declare itself in living utterance 
within thee.” Meanwhile since our Lord afterwards proclaims re- 
demption to Nicodemus (ver, 14, ff), we may judge with regard to 
his condition, that he felt indeed the need of redemption, but his 
Jewish prejudices had not allowed him to arrive at the clear con- 
sciousness of it ; this consciousness the discourse of Jesus would 
seem to have awakened. 

Ver. 11, 12.—This elevated character of Christ is expressed still 
more distinctly in the following words. In them Jesus ascribes to 
himself the immediate knowledge of things in the spiritual world. 


* The article ὁ διδάσκαλος, the teacher, is to be taken thus: the great Teacher whom 
the people think thee, and whom thou deemest thyself to be. 


Joun III. 13. 357 


(Ὃ οἴδαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν, what we know, what we have seen, prima- 
rily indicates the experience of the senses, but is here intended to 
represent the immediate knowledge of invisible things, in contrast 
with a knowledge gained by abstraction and reflection.) The guilt 
of ignorance is attributed merely to the unbelief of men. (The οὐ 
λαμβάνειν, not receiving, compare i. 5, 11, 12, is to be understood as 
referring to the reception of the essence, not of mere opinions. Spir- 
itual power alone can awaken new life within ; it cannot be accom- 
plished by altered conceptions or modified ideas.) On account of 
this unbelief, the Lord also refuses to impart any deeper instruction 
concerning the mode of regeneration, which must be sought in the 
ultimate principles of the spiritual world. He adheres to the fact, 
which is in so far an earthly one (ἐπίγειον), as it takes place in men 
who dwell on the earth. (It is indeed no earthy one, (yijivov)* since 
powers from on high produce it.) Finally, the discourse now turns 
from Nicodemus to the others present—perhaps his companions.t+ 
Ver. 13.—The connexion of this verse with those preceding is as 
follows: “ And yet the Son of Man, who descended from heaven, is 
he from whom alone any disclosure concerning the ἐπίγεια, earthly 
things, and ἐπουράνια, heavenly things, can be derived.” The pas- 
sage is quite parallel with Matth. xi. 27. (Compare the exposition 
of the latter.) The perfect ἀναβέβηκε is to be taken as the ἑώρακε 
πώποτε, i, 18; it is the absolute denial of the ἀναβαίνειν εἰς τὸν 
οὐρανόν :— neither has any one ever gone, nor can any one go, into 
heaven.” (In the connexion, the idea of going into heaven involves 
that knowledge of heavenly things that would result therefrom.) 
The creature cannot, by his own power, penetrate into the eternal 
world ; such a Titanian undertaking would be folly or crime. 
But eternal love has indeed stooped, and in itself discloses to the 
humble all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Col. 11. 3.) 
The reference of the words to the ascension, or, indeed, as Socinians 
say, to a bodily transporting of Christ into heaven (raptus Christi 
in ccelum), and such like interpretations, are of course to be alto- 
gether rejected. But that the words καταβὰς é« τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, coming 
down from heaven, may not produce the idea of a removal from 
heaven, ὁ ὧν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, he that is in heaven, is added. (Just in 
like manner vi. 38 compared with ver. 46.) This appendix, under- 
stood as the imperfect, would present an intolerable pleonasm. 
Liicke and Tholuck justly remark, that the coming of the Son, as a 
local act, does not annul his existence in heaven, but that even at his 
incarnation he ceased not to be with the Father in eternal presence. 
(Concerning υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, compare the Comm, on Luke 1. 35.) 


* Bengel makes use of the expression: the regeneration is ex ccelo, non quidem in 
ceelo, est illa in margine cceli. 

+ Perhaps the better explanation of the plural is that the Saviour speaks to Nicode- 
mus as the representative of his class, the Jews, or the Jewish teachers.—[K. 


358 Joun III. 14, 15. 


Ver. 14, 15.—The connexion of this important verse (ver. 14) 
with the preceding, is simply this: “‘ Ye acccept not my testimony, 
and yet ye can obtain the truth from no one else ; know, however, that 
not merely the word of the Son of Man is yielded to faith (not to 
preliminary knowledge), but his entire manifestation, and especially 
his deepest humiliation ; the Son of Man himself is the object of 
faith presented to all by God, and hence even thou must yield faith 
to me.” The words thus contain a strengthened exhortation tc 
faith, in that life depends upon it. According to this connexion, 
there is the highest degree of improbability in the supposition of 
Liicke and Tholuck—viz., that in this verse the heavenly things 
(ἐπούρανιον) are communicated by Christ ; for just before this (ver. 
12) the Lord had altogether refused to communicate things purely 
heavenly. And, moreover, how could the crucifixion of Christ, 
which assuredly took place on earth, and belonged entirely to earth, 
be called a heavenly thing if regeneration is called an earthly one ? 
Besides which, the death of the Redeemer, although immediately 
connected with the forgiveness of sins, was not so closely connected 
with the new birth. Hence it is more natural to suppose that the 
reference to the heavenly is here entirely dropped, so that ver. 14 
merely has the following connexion with the preceding: ‘ the Son 
of Man alone is come from heaven and is in heaven, he alone there- 
fore must be believed in; to which end he is elevated for the con- 
templation of all, as Moses elevated the Serpent.” This at any rate 
appears simpler than to say with Tholuck, that the crucifixion is 
salled a heavenly thing, in so far as it rests upon a decree passed 
in heaven. 

We proceed to the contents of the passage itself. It belongs to 
those few discourses of Jesus in which he speaks as it were prophet- 
ically of his expiatory death. (Comp. the Comm. on Matth. xx. 28.) 
Hence it partakes of the general character of these passages, con- 
taining intimations rather than details. (See the reasons hereof in 
the other passages.) The Redeemer takes the occurrence related 
Numb. xxi. 8, 9, typically (a decided testimony, from the mouth of 
the Lord himself, to the allowableness of typical interpretations), 
and compares the believing gaze of the sick upon the uplifted brazen 
Serpent and their bodily healing, to the gaining of eternal life 
through, the believing look of the sinful world upon the uplifted 
Son of Man. Hence the suspended Serpent} was a σύμβολον σωτη- 
ρίας, symbol of salvation, (Wisd. Sol. xvi. 6). Liicke thinks that, 


* Compare the treatise on this passage by Jacobi in the Stud. 1835, No. i. p.1 ff; 
likewise De Wette’s remarks, ibid. 1834, No. 4. 

+ The Serpent was for a very long time preserved among the people, and idolatrous 
worship was paid to it under the name of Nechustan. King Hezekiah on this account 
caused it to be destroyed (2 Kings xviii. 4). Comp. Menken tiber die eherne Schlange 
Bremen. 1829. Also Kerne’s Treatise in Bengel’s Theol. Archiy. vol. i. 


Joun IIT. 14, 15. 359 


according to the view of Jesus, it was an wedesigned symbol of the 
idea of expiation. But whence this is to be deduced does not ap- 
pear ; the text contains nothing to favour such an opinion, On 
the contrary, in the express Divine appointment of this particular 
remedy, we must presuppose the definite purpose that it should be 
a type of the coming redemption through the crucified One, even if 
Moses did not understand the deeper significancy of the Serpent ; 
because otherwise it would be an accidental coincidence, which in 
the sublimest of God’s arrangements, cannot be supposed. This is 
confirmed by the δεῖ, must, in which, according to Liicke’s more just 
remark, the higher ἀπ αι necessity is intimated, 

With regard to the point of comparison between Christ and the 
uplifted Serpent, it 1s a question whether this consists merely in 
the elevation, or also in the form of the Serpent. According to 
Rom. vill. 3, it appears to me most probable that both are to be 
combined. It is there said that God sent his Son, in the likeness 
of sinful flesh (ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας). The Serpent is thus 
to be regarded as a symbol of the sinful nature to which the Re- 
deemery in his incarnation, assumed resemblance. Accordingly, the 
remedy appeared in the form of that which was to be healed. The 
Serpent's bite—an image of the wounding of Adam through 'the se- 
duction of the old Serpent, ὦ. e., the Devil—was healed by a look 
upon a serpent-form, and faith in one who died conquers death. 
The word of Divine truth loves such apparent contradictions, in 
order that, by foolish preaching, the wisdom of the world may be 
put to shame (1 Cor. i. 20). Now, although John, in the following 
verses (il. 16, ff.) gives the most unequivocal interpretation of the 
ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τ. d., the Son of Man must be, etc., as referring 
to the sacrificial death of Jesus, yet attempts have been made at 
one time to modify this interpretation (Dr. Paulus explains ἔδωκε, 
ver. 16, by the words ‘caused to be born”), and at another to 
change the meaning of the term ὑψοῦν, itself, in order to get rid of 
the abhorred idea of sacrifice. In the passage, Numb. xxi. 8, 9, the 
word does not occur; there it is said, w~>y ow, LXX. θὲς ἐπὶ 
σημείου, ‘set up for a sign.” But since that which is set up to be 
gazed at is usually elevated, ὑψωθῆναι was a suitable expression for 
this idea. Now the Hellenists employ this verb also for xe», in the 
signification “to exalt, to extol.” (Luke i. 52, x. 15; Matth. xi. 
23, xxiii. 12.) Hence Dr. Paulus derives the rendering : “ the Son 
of Man must be exalted in splendour and glory, and the recognition 
of his exaltation is eternally salutary.” But the passages viii. 28, 
xii. 32, ff., clearly shew that the Jews understood the term lifted up 
otherwise, and referred it to death. In the latter passage not only 
does John again give the definite declaration that ὑψωθῆναι refers to 
the crucifixion, but the same thing also presents itself in the words 


360 Joun IIT. 14, 15. 


of the Jews. Probably, therefore, the Lord used the Aramaic term 
net, Ezra vi. 11, or nbn, Esth. vii. 9, 10, ix. 13, for the customary 
phrase “to hang up a criminal on a post, to crucify,” as also the 
LXX. Esth. vii. 9, apply σταυρόω. We thus get the only consistent 
sense, that the crucified Messiah would become such a σημεῖον, sign, 
(05) to the whole believing world (πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων). 

Here we find, for the first time, the expression so common in the 
language of John, ζωὴ αἰώνιος, eternal life, in antithesis with ἀπώ- 
Aeva, perdition.* Its meaning appears in connexion with the gen- 
eral explanation of ζωή, life, given in the remarks on 1.4. We there 
saw that by this John understands absolute being, as the source of 
all that is created. Now, with a deeply spiritual meaning, the 
Scripture in general ascribes true being to the creature only in con- 
nexion with the origin of that being ; where sin dissolves that con- 
nexion, there death (θάνατος) steps in (Gen. ii. 8), and hence he 
who lives in a state of sin is called dead (νεκρός). Accordingly per- 
dition (ἀπώλεια) is to be taken as the antithesis to life (ζωή) and 
equivalent to death (θάνατος). It does not denote an annihilation of 
substance ; but the idea of true life (that of the spirit) requires con- 
sciousness, and not that of the senses merely, but a spiritual con- 
sciousness. This is wanting where there is a deprivation of spiritual 
life generally, and the animai or carnal man (ἄνθρωπος ψυχικός or 
σαρκικός) only vegetates ; such a condition, therefore, is called absence 
of life, or death. Now, the design of the advent of the Logos in 
the flesh was to pour life again into dead humanity from a living 
fountain, to restore the connexion that has been destroyed. From 
the absolutely living (αὐτοζῶν) a derived fountain of lite was to be 
drawn for every soul ; and in this fountain the soul has not merely 
a temporal life, but, because connected with absolute Being, it has 
eternal life. It is self-evident that with this, happiness, peace, and 
joy are given ; but still none of these terms can be substituted for 
eternal life (ζωὴ αἰώνιος) itself, any more than in the case of 3h, 
because they are only consequences of life, not the life itself. Ac- 
cordingly the intimate union of the Divine and the human is not 
confined to our Lord ; that which began in him is gradually extend- 
ed, and, as the Logos came forth in human form zn Christ, so 
through him men are to appear in the Divine nature (2 Peter i. 4). 
Without reunion to the fountain of life through faith, man remains 


* Tt is remarkable how the more profound men of different times and of various states 
of cultivation, have agreed with Holy Scripture in the choice of many significant ex- 
pressions for the spiritual life. Thus Plutarch writes: oiuat δὲ καὶ τῆς αἰωνίου 
ζωῆς, ἣν 6 Θεὺς εἴληχεν, εὔδαιμον εἶναι τὸ τῇ γνώσει μὴ προαπολιπεῖν τὰ γενόμενα (de 
Isid. et Οβίγ. ο. 1) And Philo: ζω ἢ μὲν αἰώνιος ἡ πρὸς τὸ ὃν καταφυγή, θάνατος & 
ὁ ἀπὸ τούτου δρασμός (de profugis. edit. Pfeiff. vol. iv. 258.) In the same work, p. 266, 
we also find the kindred expression ζωὴ ἀΐδιος which does not occur in the New 
Testament. 


Joun III. 16. 361 


in death. Sincere obedience to the law should not and cannot be 
substituted for it, this being destined merely to awaken the con- 
sciousness of estrangement from God, and to lead to the necessity 
of faith in Jesus (Rom. 111. 20). 

Here the conversation of Christ with Nicodemus concludes. If 
it be further enquired what effect this produced upon Nicodemus, 
the history indeed furnishes no particulars ; but we have sufficient 
evidence in John vii. 50, ff., xix. 39, that it did not pass by him 
without making its impression. 

Ver, 16—The Evangelist now blends with this discourse of the 
Lord an explanatory addition* (such as we often find in the Gospel 
of John), in which he admonishes his readers not to pass by this 
gracious sign in unbelief. That the words which now follow are not 
those of Jesus is demonstrated by the fact, that the reference to 
Nicodemus is entirely dropped, and the thoughts are carried back 
to the Procemium (i. 5, 10). Moreover, the aorist (ἠγάπησε, and 
especially ἔδωκε) represents the expiation as already completed : and 
finally, Jesus never applies to himself the term μονογενής, only-be- 
gotten. (Comp. also 1 John iv. 9, from which passage we see how 
truly Johannine this verse is.) The ἔδωκε, gave, explains the pre- 
vious ‘“ must be lifted up,” as we have already remarked. For the 
general idea, the Saviour’s birth and ministry on earth, John uses 
“coming into the world,” as chap. 1. 9 shews. Διδόναι, give, is 
equivalent ἰο παραδιδόναι, deliver up. (Comp. Rom, viii. 82 with Gal. i. 
4, Luke xxii. 19.) Hence we can only supply the words εἰς τὸν θά- 
νατον, to death. 

It is here significant that the work of reconciliation is traced 
to Divine love, which appears heightened by the antithesis with 
ἐς world,” this expression involving not merely the idea of univer- 
sality (as πᾶς, ver. 15), but also that of sinfulness, and therefore of 
unworthiness to be loved. This idea—that the Divine love is the 
source of reconciliation—so exactly harmonizes with the constant 
usus loquendi of the New Testament, according to which not God 
but men appear as reconciled through Christ (comp. 2 Cor. v. 19), 
that there 15 nothing unintelligible in the doubt which has been en- 
tertained in modern times, whether in general an objective recon- 
ciliation of God can be spoken of. But the perfect correctness of the 
assertion of this doctrine by the church, is proved by the fact that 
in the New Testament, parallel with the above class of statements, 
there runs another, which represents the state of man while un- 

* With respect to this and similar appendices in the Gospel of John, comp. the re- 
marks of Tholuck in his Comm. on John p. 35, f., where it is proved that nothing can be 
inferred from these appendices derogatory to the historical character of the book. I agree 
with Kling (loc. cit. p. 138), as to the suspicious character of Licke’s hypothesis, that “in 


ver. 16 Jolin has reported the words of Jesus in a freer manner, viz., mingling his own 
words with those of Christ ” 


362 Joun III. 17, 18. 


reconciled as the continuance of the wrath of God upon him. (Comp. 
the remarks on John iii. 80.) Hence the New Testament speaks 
both of Jove in God towards the world, and of wrath ;—love towards 
the Divine idea which remains even in sinful beings, wrath towards the 
sin that is ἐγ them which God cannot but hate, as constituting the 
plague of his creatures, and destroying the harmony of the uni- 
verse. Accordingly, as reconciliation is to the creature the abolition 
of estrangement, so in God it is the adjustment of wrath and favour, 
which are both to be regarded as in God ; and this latter adjust- 
ment was necessarily to be conceived and set forth as the reconcilia- 
tion of God himself.* But it is better to abstain from this 
expression as suited only to the Old Testament point of view, and 
to adhere to the New Testament mode of representation, which 
places reconciliation only in the creature, and describes God as 
effecting it. (Comp. the excellent remarks of Meyer in the Blitt. 
f. hoh. wahrh, ix. p. 109, ff. on Stier’s essay in his Beitrige zur 
biblischen Theologie.) 

Ver. 17, 18.—This view of the offering of Christ for the world, 
as the highest proof of Divine love, could not fail to commend the 
Gospel very much to the immediate readers of John, whose bias 
was thoroughly anti-Jewish, and who, on this account, were offended 
at the notion that the Messiah, as a strict judge, was to punish the 
world. Hence the Evangelist pursues the thought. He denies 
that the Son came into the world for the purpose of judgment ; he 
came for the purpose of salvation, which is obtained through faith, 
Here again faith is evidently to be taken in that essential signifi- 
cance which, as we have already shewn, pervades the whole language 
of Scripture. It is the reception of the element of light brought 
into the world by the Messiah. Hence it is even said of the believer, 
ov κρίνεται, he is not judged, separated, because he accomplished the 
separation in himself, when he left the darkness and turned to the 
light. (Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 2, xi. 31.) From what has already been 

* Hence this mode of expression occasionally occurs also in the Old Testament—a 
circumstance which proves that it is not to be considered as pos'tively false, but merely 
as a subordinate point of view. For example, in the Old Testament, the phrase nim 
ἜΣ occurs, 2 Sam. xxi. 14, xxiv. 25, [The expression in 2 Sam. xxi. 14 is ἜΣ 
= ros. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 25 it is πὶ 7 AND —Tr.] This literally signifies “ God 
ca_sed himself to be supplicated,” but since it stands in connexion with the presenta- 
tion of offerings, Luther could correctly translate ‘God was reconciled.” The formula 
n> ΞΘ jn» Ps. xlix. 7, Sept. διδόναι τῷ Θεῷ ἐξίλασμα, is more definite. Nevertheless, 
ordinarily even in the Scriptures of the Old Testament the creature is described as the 
party recouciled, so that the offering is necessary for the sake of the creature. In the 
New Testament, however, God also expressly appears as he who himself effects the re- 
conciliation, which can be said of the Old Testament only in so far as the offerings were 
brought, not according tothe impulse of the persons who presented them, but at the 
command of God, and according to his appointment, he himself therefore in this way 


bringing about the reconciliation. (Comp. the particulars on this subject in the Comm. 
on Rom. iii, 25.) 


Joun III. 19-21. 363 


» remarked, we see that although John asserted that Christ did not 
come (immediately, positively) at his first advent for the purpose of 
judgment, nevertheless he by no means intended to deny that the 
judgment always negatively followed in his train.* As it manifests 
itself in the believer, because henceforth he is not condemned ; so 
also in the unbeliever, since he is condemned already. For the 
judgment (κρίσις) is the separation,and the light is the element that 
distinguishes and separates. On this account it is said in the par- 
allel passage (xii. 47, 48) that the word of Christ judges every one 
who (hears it and) does not believe. The word is to be conceived 
of as spirit and life (vi. 63), and consequently is equivalent to light, 
which either gains the dominion over man and blesses him, or, being 
rejected, flees from him and condemns him. He will not suffer its 
influence, consequently avoids it ; but in that very act he shuns the 
beatifying power of the Light, and is excluded from its kingdom. 
Accordingly it is again evident that faith in the name of the Only- 
begotten is the act of living in his element, the appropriation of his 
being. The remark, that here the general judgment of the world 
is not spoken of, affords no aid whatever in ascertaining the sense 
of the passage ; for during our earthly life, and in the use of 
the remedy here offercd, the salvation or the judgment is completed, 
and the separation which will take place at the judgment of the 
world, will merely be that which has long existed within coming 
forth in its final issues. 

Ver. 19-21.—That the κρίσις consists in avoiding the element of 
the Light} and in the love of darkness (i. 5-10), John further shews 
by unveiling the moral causes of this strange phenomenon, The 
Light ought to be welcome in its influence to every one, but it dis- 

closes the secret depths of the soul, and this the hypocritical and 
impenitent man shuns.t Coming (ἔρχεσθαι) and not coming (οὐκ 
ἔρχεσθαι) very suitably designate the agency of man in the work of 
conversion. The positive efficacy is exerted by the Light (the 

* The observation of De Wette (p. 49) on this subject, that “God, as the highest, 
happiest being, has nothing to do with discord between good and evil, and consequently 
does not judge,” is entirely void of sense. This height and happiness of his being on 
the contrary, goes to prove that God is the Judge of all worlds, in order to which it is 
requisite that he himself should not belong to the discord. When Jolin says (v. 22), 
‘ the Father judgeth no one, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son,” this only 
implies that the Father always manifests himself in the Son, but judgment is a self-re- 
vealing work of God. 

+ The interpretation of φῶς by the words “doctrina Christi,” which even Knapp 
supports, is evidently a dilution of the thought (comp. Knappii, Scr. var. argum. p. 250, 
seq. 

be: Seneca finely observes: Quare vitia sua nemo confitetur? Quia etiam nunc in illis 
est. Somnium narrare vigilantis est (epist. 45). With this may be compared the words 
of Augustine (on the passage): accusat Deus peccata tua, si et tu accusas, conjungeris 


Deo. Oportet ut oderis in te opus tuum, et ames in te opus Dei, Cum autem inceperit 
tibi displicere quod fecisti, ibi incipiunt bona tua opera. 


364 Joun III. 19-21. 


Spirit); the negative part, reception or rejection, belongs to man, . 
(With respect to the criminative office of the Spirit, as the inward 
Light, comp. John xvi. 9. With the accusation of sin, the work ot 
the Spirits begins, proceeding gradually to deeper operations.) 
Some difficulty, however, is occasioned in this passage by the cir- 
cumstance that two classes of men appear to be distinguished ; 
those of the one class hate the Light because it discloses evil (φαῦλα) 
in them, and those of the other love it because it brings to light 
noble actions. (Αλήθεια, truth, is the principle of the several mani- 
festations ; the ἔργα ἀγαθά are the acts proceeding from it. Com- 
pare the remarks on the truly Johannine formula: ποιεῖν τὴν 
ἀλήθειαν, do the truth, 1 John 1. 6.) It might seem, therefore, 
that according to the opinion of John, just and holy people alone, 
and no sinners could come to the light ; but this is contradictory 
both to the doctrine of Scripture as a whole, and also to the express 
declarations of the Evangelist. (Comp. 1John ii. 1,2.) Hence the 
meaning is rather to be taken thus: Isolated good works do not fit 
men for coming to the Light ; these on the contrary, often have the 
very effect of withholding from the Light, since man builds upon 
them a personal righteousness (ἐδία δικαιοσύνη)---Ὀτιῦ the fitness con- 
sists in the entire inward tone of truth and sincerity, with that which 
proceeds from it. But the very essence of this disposition lies in 
refraining from self-exculpation and in calling evil, evil. Accord- 
ingly, it is true, sincere penitence that leads to the Light, and this 
must take place just as much in him who, owing to circumstances, 
has not fallen into gross sins, as in him who has.* Thus un- 
derstood, the expression “ doing truth” (ποιεῖν ἀλήθειαν) also gains 
its proper, profound signification, since it indicates the princi- 
ple of life; and just in like manner the words, “are wrought in 
God” (ἐν Θεῷ ἔστιν εἰργωσμένα), which represent God, the source of 
truth, as the ground of all truth and sincerity in a creature, so far 
as they are manifested in him. Hence ἐν, in, retains its proper 
meaning ; and the expression may be explained by ἐν δυνάμει Θεοῦ, 
in the power of God. 


* Tf it be said that works wrought in God (ἔργα ἐν Θεῷ εἰργασμένα) may be even such 
acts of piety as Cornelius performed (Acts x.), which were accounted in him as means 
whereby he became pleasing to God; yet it must not be overlooked that this was not 
the result of the actions as such, but of the disposition from which they proceeded—an 
humble, unpretending spirit, sincere ardent desire after God. So understood, this brings 
us again to what has already been mentioned; he only who longs to know himself, and 
who desires in true repentance to become free from sin, comes joyfully to the Light; for 
in him the Light discloses this very Divine work within him, viz., that he wishes to 
be God's, which no man can wish of himself. 


Joun III, 22-24. | 365 


§ 6. Seconp Testimony or THE Baptist ConcERNING JESUS. . 
(John iii, 22-36.) 


The interview of Nicodemus with the Lord had taken place in 
Jerusalem, but the Evangelist now brings Jesus to Judea, into the 
neighbourhood of the Baptist, who was at that time still teaching 
in the enjoyment of his liberty. That a second testimony from the 
Baptist is now adduced, in which no more is said of Christ than in 
the first, can hardly be defended as answering any object, except on the 
supposition that the Evangelist had persons in his eye, to whom the 
Baptist’s relation to the Redeemer could scarcely be presented with 
sufficient distinctness, At the same time, ver. 24 renders it certain 
that the Evangelist could presuppose the acquaintance of his readers 
with the fate of the Baptist. John, according to his custom, then 
again appended to the words of the Baptist some remarks which 
relate to the general design of the Gospel. 

Ver, 22-24.—-When Jesus left the city he bent his steps towards 
the Jordan, where he baptized ; remaining, however, in the country 
of the Jews. (Concerning the baptism of Jesus, comp. the remarks 
on John iy. 2.) John also was baptizing in the neighbourhood, be- 
cause the water there, being deep, afforded convenience for immer- 
sion ; and the proximity of the two messengers of God occasioned 
the following dispute (ζήτησις). (Αἰνών is not elsewhere known. 
Probably it is derived from 3:3, which in the plural is used for ‘‘foun- 
tain.”) Σαλήμ, or, as some codices write it, Σαλείμ — tv, was a 
name borne by several cities of Palestine. In the first place, the 
city of Melchizedek (Gen. xiv. 18), subsequently named Jerusalem, 
was socalled; and, secondly, it is probable that Sichem also had 
the same designation in ancient times. But the Salem mentioned 
here is distinct from both these. (Comp. v. Raumer’s Palestina, 
2d edit. p. 159, note.) 

Here arises the question, how the chronological data of Johu 
stand related to the statements of the synoptical Evangelists. 
(Comp. the Comm. on Matth. iv. 12.) Luke (ii. 19, 20) introduces 
the notice concerning the imprisonment of the Baptist quite inci- 
dentally, because he had just been speaking of him ; so that this 
is obviously not a date, but a remark by way of anticipation. 
(Comp. the Comm. on Matth. iv, 12, and on Matth. xiv. 1.) In 
Matth. iv. 12, indeed, the visit of Christ to Galilee, which appears 
to have been occasioned by the report of the Baptist’s imprison- 
ment, is annexed to the temptation of Christ, and just so Mark 1.. 
14; but this circumstance involves no contradiction of the state- 
ments of John, unless that journey to Galilee be taken as parallel 


366 Joun III. 22-24. 


with what is related i. 44, ii. 1. But nothing in the text renders 
this at all necessary ; it may be taken as simultaneous with that 
mentioned John iv. 8. If this be done, the account given by Mat- 
thew and Mark only appears very much abbreviated. Both leave 
out all that occurred between the temptation and the imprisonment, 
viz., the first journey to Galilee at the marriage in Cana (John ii. 1, 
ff.), the journey to the Passover (John ii, 13, ff.), and lastly the 
journey to Jordan (John 111. 22). Accordingly we need only sup- 
pose that while Jesus was passing some time near Jordan, John the 
Baptist was arrested, and this occasioned the journey to Galileo 
(John iv, 8), and then all exactly harmonizes ; for at Matth. xiv. 1, 
ff., the detailed narrative of the arrest is evidently introduced re- 
trospectively ; the main subject there is the death of the Baptist ; 
but how long he was in prison we know not. The only thing that 
might be said in opposition to this arrangement is, that the omis- 
sion on the part of Matthew and Mark appears very strange ; but 
we need not consider the period thus passed over to be more than a 
few weeks. The journey to Cana was merely an incidental one ; in 
Capernaum Jesus remained (according to ii. 12) but few days, in Jeru- 
salem simply during the feast, and at the Jordan also, we only need 
suppose a brief stay. Besides, the relation of the Baptist to Jesus 
implies that the time of his working with Jesus would be but short. 
After the baptism of Jesus, and after he had directed his disciples 
to Jesus, his office was finished, his imprisonment was only in- 
tended to serve for his personal perfection, Hence we can easily 
account for the circumstance that Matthew and Mark connect the 
imprisonment immediately with the ministry of Jesus in Galilee, 
Matthew necessarily knowing nothing of it by personal observation, 
since he was not called till afterwards. I therefore quite agree 
with the ancient opinion, which also Kusebius,* who relates it, 
adopted, viz., that Matthew and Mark give no account of what took 
place before the arrest of the Baptist ; although indeed that Father 
was mistaken in thinking that John mentions only the occurrences 
before this; for, on the contrary, the arrest of the Baptist must 
be placed shortly before the journey to Galilee, related John iv. 3, 
of which it was the very occasion. So also in the last editions, 
Liicke and Tholuck. De Wette, on the other hand, without ad- 
ducing his reasons, adheres to the opinion that Matth. iv. 12, is par- 
allel with John i, 44, so that the contradiction is not removed ; he 
merely avers that Jesus commences his ministry John chap. ii. as 
he commences it Matth. iv. 12, without entering further into the 


* Kuseb. H. E. iii. 24, edit. Stroth. p. 156. Οὐκοῦν ὁ μὲν ἸΙωάννης τῇ τοῦ Kar’ αὐτὸν 
εὐαγγελίου γραφῇ, τὰ μηδέπω τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ εἰς φυλακὴν βεβλημένου πρὸς Tod Χριστου 
πραχθέντα παραδίδωσιν. Οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τρεῖς εὐαγγελισταὶ Ta μετὰ τὴν εἰς τὸ δεσμωτῆριον 
κάθειρξιν τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ μνημονεύουσιν. 


Joun III. 25-28. 367 


above representation. Yet immediately afterwards, he finds himself 
compelled, in commenting on iv. 1-6, to the confession (p. 55), 
“here, if we insert the arrest of the Baptist, Matth. iv. 12 does 
indeed appear to be parallel,” but he adds in a decisive tone, ‘it 
refers to an earlier period.” 

Ver. 25, 26.—The disciples of John now occasioned a dispute (ἐκ 
indicates the origin) with a Jew. (The ordinary reading is Ἰουδαίων, 
Bentley conjectured Ἰησοῦ without any sufficient reason, The sin- 
gular, however, individualizes more than the plural, and is certainly 
to be preferred.) The dispute related to baptism (καθαρισμός ---- βάτ-- 
tioua), which cannot have excited surprise except on the ground 
that it was performed by John and Jesus upon Jews. The precise 
point of the controversy is not given ; but the disciples of John must 
have felt their vanity wounded by the remarks of the Jew, while he 
probably gave it as his opinion that the baptism of Jesus was more 
effectual than that of John ; hence they hasten to their Master, 
and, as it were, complain to him of Jesus, that all are crowding to 
him. The remark “ to whom thou hast borne witness” (6 σὺ μεμαρ- 
τύρηκας), is justly viewed by Tholuck as an elevation of the Bap- 
tist above Jesus, 

Ver. 27, 28.—The humble Baptist, however, reminds his vain 
disciples of the contents of his testimony (comp. i. 15, 30), and re- 
fers that which was higher in Christ to the Divine appointment, 
which ordained to him a more elevated position, We might be 
tempted to understand the general proposition in which the Bap- 
tist expresses this sentiment—ob δύναται ἄνθρωπος, κ. τ. λ., ἃ man 
cannot, etc.—as meaning, “‘ Man should not take anything to himself 
which is not given him from above, although he can.” It might 
then be thought that the Baptist, tempted by vanity, had repre- 
sented himself as the Messiah, and in that case he would have arro- 
gated to himself something which had not been given to him. But 
the sentiment is undoubtedly to be taken thus: Even if a man does 
assume anything to himself, it can yield him no success, unless God 
wills his prosperity. Be the course of things therefore as it may, 
all is disposed from above, and without the will of God, nothing 
comes to pass.* In the phrase ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε ἀπεσταλμένος εἰμί, two con- 
structions are blended. The ἀλλά is to be explained from the an- 


* Qlshausen seems to intimate that John’s language might be construed into an ad- 
mission that he had formerly given himself out for the Messiah, but foolishly and vainly, 
as a man can successfully assume nothing which is not given to him from heaven. Thus, 
taken in its connexion, it would be a sort of retraction of former false pretensions. But 
such an interpretation is so utterly at war with all that is recorded of John, and so far 
from being required by the words themselves, that the bare suggestion of it (although it 
is of course rejected by himself) is more worthy of Strauss or De Wette, than of Olshau- 
sen. The real import of the passage seems to me to be: “ My position in respect to the 
Messiah has been fixed on high. I had a definite work to perform, and beyond that I 


368 Joun III. 29, 30. 


tithesis to the foregoing οὐκ εἰμὲ ἐγὼ ὁ Χριστός, and the sentence 
should run: ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἀπεσταλμένος ἔμπροσθεν ἐκείνου. But the ὅτι 18 
again connected with the μαρτυρεῖτε, and supposes the repetition of 
CTL εἰπον. 

Ver. 29, 30.—The Baptist now represents the different relations 
of himself and Christ, under the familiar Old Testament figure of 
marriage. (Comp. the Comm. on Luke xvi. 16.) The Messiah 
himself is the Desire of humanity, and humanity represented by be- 
lievers, as its noblest members, is called the bride (νύμφη). The two 
are ὌΡΙΝΕ 1 in the most emis bond of love, which in its highest 
manifestation—marriage—appears in the πον and Pema 
ministry of the Son of God on earth. The Baptist further asserts 
that he is the Bridesman (comp. the remarks on Matth. ix. 15, 
where the term υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος is employed), who conducts the 
Bridegroom to the arms of the Bride, but remains without the 
bridal-chamber (ὦ. 6. enters not into the kingdom of God itself, comp. 
the remarks on Matth. xi. 11), and listens to the rejoicing of the 
Bridegroom. 

The Holy Scripture does not shun the use of such graphic re- 
presentations, derived from sensuous love,* in order to illustrate 
spiritual relations ; because they are intended for readers whose 
eyes are pure and enlightened, while to the impure, everything, 
even that which is purest, appears impure and defiled. Such pas- 
sages of the New Testament support the exposition of the Song of 
Solomon as referring to spiritual love, without which reference the 
book would not belong to the canon, (The formula χαρὰ πεπλήρω- 
tat occurs also xv. 11, xvi, 24, xvii. 13. The joy of Simeon was 
completed as he folded the child Jesus in his arms ; the joy of the 
Baptist attained its perfection when he knew that the Bride was in 
the arms of the Messiah—7. 6. when he beheld the commencement 
of the Messiah’s spiritual work, which made humanity fruitful in 
higher spiritual powers.) The humble Baptist now willingly re- 
tired, with his circle, into the shade ; he knew that, according to 
the appointment of God, the Messiah was to increase. This unas- 


can arrogate nothing to myself. I had an appointed mission: it is fulfilled, and in the 
growing success of Jesus I gladly acquiesce as the grand purpose to which my ministry 
was subordinated.” The Baptist thus replies to the spiri, rather than to the form, of his 
disciples’ remark, which was a sort of complaint that he was being thrown into the shade 
by the person to whom he himself had borne witness. The reply thus opens by stating 
the principle on which he acquiesces in this state of things, viz., that the purpose of his 
mission had been divinely determined. That the language cannot refer to the Saviour 
(viz., that his success proves his Divine mission) is proved, aside from its being less ap- 
propriate, by the word ἄνθρωπος, a man, which naked term John assuredly would not 
have applied to the Messiah.—[K. 

* Taking a profounder view, it would be necessary to say, that spiritual love is the 
original, and all sensual love is only a darkened image of the essence of the former. 


Joun III. 31, 32. 369 


sumingness and simplicity perfect the character of the Baptist ; a 
higher power, new life, surpassing the Old Testament, he did not 
possess ; but with entire humility he acknowledged his position, and 
attested the subordinate relation in which he stood to the plans 
of God. 

Ver. 31, 32.— The following words, as far as ver. 36, are evidently 
not the Baptist’s, but those of the Evangelist, who is skilled in 
closely fitting his own words to those which he reports.* For, in 
the first place, the following verses are not at all in keeping with 
the point of view occupied by the Baptist and his adherents, as for 
example they testify the happy result flowing from the reception of 
the words of Jesus, which had not yet taken place with the Baptist ; 
the thoughts issue from the profound mind of John, and are com- 
pletely clothed in his garb. In the second place, they also arise 
out of the connexion ; for the last verses in particular refer not to 
the relation between Christ and the Baptist, but merely to that be- 
tween the Redeemer and believers dr unbelievers. The first verses 
(31, 32), on the other hand, contain a significant reference to the 
disciples of John, to whom their Master was to be shewn in his 
proper position with respect to the Redeemer. 

The Evangelist now, in the following verses, places the Baptist 
in contrast with Christ. John, although the greatest born of women 
(Matth. xi. 11), is but an earthly sage, greatly enlightened by the 
Spirit of God, and can only speak as his origin permits. Christ, on 
the contrary, is purely from heaven (ἄνωθεν is explained by the im- 
mediately subsequent words ἐκ τοῦ otpavod)—one who bears witness 
to mortals of heavenly things seen by him directly. (Comp. the re- 
marks on ili, 11.) (The phrase: ὁ ὧν ἐκ τῆς γῆς, ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν, 
appears tautological ; but Liicke justly observes that the former 
sentence is the subject, and the latter the predicate—the former in- 
dicating the origin, the latter the occupation—so that the meaning 
may be resolved thus: ὁ ἐκ τῆς γῆς γήϊνδς ἐστιν.) The expression ἐκ 
τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ, speaketh from the earth, however, is peculiarly remark- 
able, and certainly appears too strong in application to a prophet who 
speaks under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.; The term ἐπίγεια 
(iii. 12), may be compared ; but just because this certainly could 
not be interchanged with γήϊνα, é« and ἐπί by no means appear sy- 
nonymous. The passage is probably best understood thus : even that 
which is Divine in the discourse of John, he speaks from earth, ὦ. e., 
in an earthly, veiled form—whilst Christ presents that which is 

* On this subject comp. the apologetic remarks of Tholuck in his Comment. p. 36. 

+ But its strangeness does not authorize such an unsuitable expression as that of De 
Wette in his remarks on the passage: ‘ the remarkable undervaluation of all, even of the 
Baptist, must be regarded as the excess either of modesty in the Baptist, or of the apolo- 


getic element (!) in the Evangelist.” The first question is, whether an excess may at all 
be supposed. 


Vou. 11.---24 


370 *  Joun ILI. 33-36. 


heavenly from heaven, 7. ¢., in heavenly clearness and purity. John 
speaks human words (ῥήματα ἀνθρώπου), but Christ utters Divine 
words (ῥήματα Θεοῦ). (Comp. ver. 34.) In John the Divine itself 
was manifested in a human subordinate form. 

Ver. 33, 34.—The Evangelist deeply deplores the fact that this 
heavenly testimony is not received (7. 6. only by a very small num-~ 
ber in proportion to the mass) ; but still, taught by inward experi- 
ence, he is compelled to add that he who received this testimeny 
derived from it unspeakable happiness; he experienced that Goc is 
true, that he fulfils all his promises, and satisfies all desire. (2¢pa- 
yisw, to seal, to confirm. Just so vi. 27; Ephes. 1, 13, iv. 30. The 
confirmation here refers to the receiver (λαβών) himself, as well as 
to the others also.) Now, this confirmation is founded upon the cir- 
cumstance that he speaks the words of God. We expect something 
entirely different, e. g., ‘since in him all prophecies are fulfilled.” 
True, the words of God need not necessarily be fulfilments ; they 
may be new promises. But ‘he who speaks Divine words is the 
Messiah, of whom it was promised, I will put my words into 
his mouth” (Deut. xviii. 18). Consequently this sentence means 
the same thing, for in the Messiah all promises of God are yea and 
amen (2 Cor. i. 20). The conclusion: οὐ γὰρ éx μέτρου δίδωσιν, k. τ. 
i., for not by measure, etc., explains how he who was sent from God 
was able to speak words of God, for αὐτῷ, to him, is to be supplied. 
Even John had the Divine Spirit in a certain degree (ἐκ μέτρου ---- 
μετρίως, the reading ἐκ μέρους is merely explanatory), but the Mes- 
siah had the entire fulness of Divine life and Divine power, the 
word of the Father dwelt in him, and therefore he spake Divine 
words. Meyer has so misunderstood the passage as to consider the 
words God giveth not by measure, etc., a general statement, apply- 
ing to ail messengers from God ; he says that God always gives his 
Spirit without measure, the different degrees in which it is partici- 
pated depending merely on the different degrees of receptivity in 
the receiver. It is evident that the words refer merely to “ him 
whom God hath sent” (ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεός). (The present δίδωσι 
very aptly points out the permanent communication of the Spirit 
by the Father to the Son, so that we are to imagine a constant flow 
and reflow of living powers.) (Comp. 1. 52.) 

Ver. 35, 86.—Instead of the general expressions hitherto em- 
ployed respecting the Messiah (ὁ ἄνωθεν, ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος) we 
now have the term Son, by which the altogether peculiar relation 
of God to him, as his Lather, is designated. (Instead of ἀγαπᾶν, 
φιλεῖν is used in the same sense. Comp. vy. 20.) In consequence 
of this relation, God has invested the Son, as the Heir, with the 
sovereignty of the world, and for this reason life and happiness de- 
pend upon faith in him. (Comp. the observations on Matth. xi. 27. 


ὃ 
Joun III. 35, 86. 371 


To refer the “all things” (πάντα) merely to the moral ministry of the 
Redeemer through his teaching, is to render the meaning super- 
ficial, and therefore contrary to the character of Scripture. Comp. 
the remarks on Matth. xxviii. 18 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28.) In the con- 
cluding verse (as iii. 15), eternal life is associated with faith. Here 
we need not inquire, how the ἀπειθῶν is related to the μὴ πιστεύων 
(ver.18). The two expressions are, it is true, different in them- 
selves, but here they are so employed that so far as the sense goes, 
they are perfectly synonymous ; as Liicke acknowledges in the 
second edition of his Commentary, although he had previously de- 
nied it. Unbelief itself is here regarded as disobedience, and, in- 
deed, as total disobedience proceeding from the entire man ; and 
being such, is not merely a disobedience (ἀπείθεια) but the disobe- 
dience out of which all others atise. (Comp. Rom. xi. 30-82 ; 
Ephes. ii. 2, v. 6. In the latter passage, even the ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ is 
connected with the ἀπείθεια.) As parallel to “he shall not see life” 
(οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν) it is added: “ but the wrath of God abideth on 
him (ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν). (With regard to life 
and wrath, comp. the remarks on 111. 15, 10.) John, the preacher 
of the Jove of God (1 John iv. 8, 16), knows also the wrath of God, 
which of necessity co-exists with the energy and ardour of love, 
since wrath only represents the other pole of love.* Love draws to 
itself that which is kindred, but rejects that which is discordant, 
and, in the same being, it attracts the element of the former, whilst 
it repels that of the latter. Accordingly it cannot be without 
wrath, and, as no property of God operates without the others (for 
in him all are essentially one), so love does not work without im- 
parting reward (or rather benefit), and wrath does not work without 
punishing (or inflicting pain), as the two forms in which righteous- 
ness is displayed. During the time that man, as a member of sin- 
ful humanity, lapsed and estranged from God, does not experience 
the redeeming power of Christ (Ephes. 11. 3), the repulsive pole of 
Divine love manifests itself, and if he rejects redemption, this state 
continues till he surrenders (μένει ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν). Absolute permanence 
of wrath is here indicated, only so far as an entire and permanent 
disobedience is presupposed, Hence the intention of Divine wrath 
and of that righteous wisdom which made sin and evil necessarily 
connected, is thus God’s loving purpose to awaken in man the 
consciousness of his sinful condition. Liicke therefore is evidently 
in error when he regards the expression, ‘‘ the wrath of God abideth 
on him,” as stronger than κέκριται, is yudged, condemned (ver. 18). 
He who is condemned, 7, e. excluded from the kingdom of redemp- 
tion, is surely under wrath, and thus in the two expressions there is 
only one and the same thing to be seen (comp. Rom. i. 18 ; ii. 5; 
* With respect to ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, comp. the Comment. on Matth. xvi 34, 35. 


372 Joun IV. 1. 


Ephes. v. 6 ; Coloss. iii. 6.) De Wette here, at the conclusion of 
the chapter remarks, “ this verse (ver. 86) might be used even 
against the Baptist himself and his disciples.” How this observa- 
tion is to be understood, viz., that the wrath of God may be said to 
remain on the Baptist because he did not believe in the Son, is 
shewn by the sequel, where De Wette observes that John the Bap- 
tist appears to have placed himself in opposition to Christ, since he 
continued to baptize even after Jesus had declared himself to be the 
Messiah ; and that, therefore, even if the whole statement here 
given is not to be rejected, at any rate John the Evangelist was in- 
duced by apologetic reasons to overstep the limits of historic truth. 
It is indeed very much to be lamented that the theologian whom we 
have named has not shrunk from yielding himself so far to the Straus- 
sian influence. For, does it necessarily follow from John’s still baptiz- 
ing, that he intended to place himself in opposition to Jesus ? Nay, 
is it not the most natural supposition that he baptized for the same 
purpose afterwards as before, viz., to point the penitent to Christ ἢ 
Where do we find a word to the contrary ? The circumstance that 
in Acts xix. 8, the disciples of John still are mentioned, only shews 
—as is indicated by the very existence of the sect of the Zabians,,. 
and their doctrines—that many disciples did not follow out John’s 
instruction to join themselves to Jesus. Besides which, some well- 
meaning persons, like those mentioned Acts xix., may have become 
disconnected from the Baptist, before he decidedly recognized the 
office of Jesus, at his baptism. At all events the insinuation that 
ver, 86 may be referred to the Baptist himself is truly calculated to 
shock the mind. 


§ 7. THe CoNVERSATION OF CHRIST WITH THE WOMAN OF 
SAMARIA. 


(John iv. 1—42.) 


The following charming narrative is most intimately connected 
with the avowed design (xx. 31) of the Gospel, to represent Jesus 
as the Christ. Christ here unequivocally declares (ver. 26) that he 
is the Messiah, Moreover, the spiritual views concerning the true 
worship of God, propounded in the conversation with the Samaritan 
woman (ver. 23, 24), are quite calculated for the immediate readers 
of John ; so that the pertinence of this chapter to the general scope 
of the Gospel is obvious to every one. However, we cannot but 
consider Hengstenberg (on the Authenticity of the Pentateuch) 
mistaken in adopting the view of Strauss (Leben Jesu Th. i. p. 519, 
ff.), that this occurrence involves a symbolical significance which, at 
the same time, does not destroy the historic truth of Christ’s inter« 

- 


Joun IV. 1-3. 373 


view with the woman of Samaria. For, in the first place, the sup- 
position that the woman represented the Samaritan people, and her 
five husbands the five races from which, according to 2 Kings, xvii. 
24, the Samaritans sprang, is in the highest degree forced. And, 
in the second place, this hypothesis leads to the utterly untenable 
conclusion that the Samaritan woman, and with her the inhabitants 
of Sichem, were employed purely as a medium whereby to symbol- 
ize a thought which might have been far more simply expressed in 
plain words. For although Hengstenberg does not deny the reality 
of the external fact, yet he evidently lowers its significance as such, 
in order to give prominence to its symbolical aspect ; it being alto- 
gether denied, or at least strongly doubted, that the Lord really 
intended to produce any effect upon the woman and the Sichemites, 
Now, unconscious objects, such as the fig-tree, the fish with the 
piece of money, etc., may well be employed in those symbolical ac- 
tions, in which the mere outward act loses all its importance ; but 
it is not appropriate thus to employ human beings, since they never 
can be used merely as a means, but constantly appear in the minis- 
try of Christ as the end. 

Ver. 1-3.--The circumstance that Jesus, upon receiving the in- 
telligence that the Pharisees were aware of the power which he held 
over the people, leaves Judea and goes to Galilee—a place less 
exposed to Pharisaic influence—on the one hand indicates persecu- 
tions already prepared for himself, and on the other, renders it not 
improbable that just at this time the Baptist was imprisoned (com- 
pare the remarks on iii. 22). Here is subjoined the remark that 
Jesus himself did not baptize, but only the disciples.* In like 
manner the apostles did not baptize after the Pentecost, but only 
their companions, while the apostles laid their hands upon the bap- 
tized, who therewith received the Spirit. (Compare Acts viii. 14— 
17 ; 1 Cor.i.14-16.) This plainly indicates a certain subordination 
of water-baptism (comp. the Comm. on Matth. iii. 1) in relation to 
the baptism of the Spirit,f when the two did not coincide, as 
doubtless they did in the baptisms performed by the apostles them- 
selves (1 Cor. i, 14, ff). The baptism of the disciples before the 
institution of the Sacrament and the outpouring of the Spirit was, 
at any rate, a mere baptism of repentance (βάπτισμα μετανοίας), be- 
cause they themselves had not as yet received any other bap- 
tism,} and the Holy Spirit was not yet given (John vii. 39). 


* The prebable reason why Jesus himself did not baptize, was, as Meyer justly re- 
marks, that it seemed unsuitable for him to baptize in his own name. 

+ The later ecclesiastical usage, viz., the deacons baptizing, but the bishops impart- 
ing the chrism (a custom still retained in the Catholic Church), was derived from this 
distinction. 

¢ I cannot agree with the view of Matthias, when he asserts (de baptismate. Berol. 
1831, p. 57, not.) that the baptism practised by the apostles before the outpouring of 


814 Joun IV. 4-9. 


Ver. 4-6.—The direct road from Judea to Galilee led thiough 
Samaria, though the most carefully scrupulous Jews avoided it, and 
went through Perea. The Hebrew name of the town which Jesus 
touched on his way is p38 — Σιχέμ or Συχέμ. The reading Σιχάρ, 
or more correctly =vydp, is perhaps a distortion of the name, in vogue 
among the Jews, equivalent to "28, drunk, or -p¥, falsehood. (Sir. 
1, 26, the town is called τὰ Σικίμα.) But, as it is not likely that the 
Evangelist would receive a vulgar nickname into his grave narra- 
tive, it seems to me more probable that the ρ standing for μ is noth- 
ing more than an instance of the exchange of liquid letters which 
sometimes occurs—as Nebuchadnezzar, Beliar. Hengstenberg’s 
supposition that John himself formed the opprobrious epithet inten- 
tionally, in order to indicate the culpableness of the Samaritan her- 
esy, appears to me inadmissible ; because, in the first place, the 
Sichemites are not identical with the Samaritans generally, but only 
form a small part of them. The ye, in the words ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ 
οὐκ οἴδατε, ye worship, etc. (ver. 22), does not refer to the Sichemites, 
but to all Samaritans. In the second place, it is contrary to the 
usage of the New Testament to disgrace any one by the application 
of a reproachful name. With respect to the situation of Sichem 
and its relation to Neapolis, subsequently so called, comp. v. Rau- 
mer’s remarks in the second edition of his Geographie von Pales- 
tina (p. 160, note), by which the apparent contradictions in the 
accounts of the ancients are satisfactorily solved. On the χωρίον of 
Joseph, comp. Gen, xxxiii. 19, xlvii. 22, Tradition there assigned 
a well to Jacob ; on this Jesus sat in the heat of noon. (The sixth 
hour = twelve o’clock. The memory of the faithful disciple often 
marks such little incidents.) The mention of the weariness of 
Jesus is a testimony (although perhaps unintentional) against gnostic 
Doceticism. 

Ver. T-9.—The Lord, in the simplest and most natural manner, 
introduces a conversation with a Samaritan woman, who comes to draw 
water from the well, and, after thus introducing it, he at once contrives 
to turn it towards Divine things. The woman, in the first instance, 
expresses her astonishment at being accosted in snch a friendly 
manner, in spite of national antipathy, by a Jew, which she doubtless 
immediately recognized him to be in dress and speech, (Συγχρᾶσθαι 
occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.) The details respect- 
the Spirit was performed ἐν πνεύματι καὶ πυρί. It was indeed distinguished from 
that of the Baptist by this, that it could not be performed εἰς τὸν ἐρχόμενον, with refer- 
ence to him that was to come, for the apostles had acknowledged Christ as the Redeemer 
already come; but, in the nature of the case, it could not go beyond repentatce, 
because the power of the Holy Spirit was not yet poured out. On this account all 
who had been baptized by the apostles needed also the communication of the Holy 


Spirit by imposition of hands. (Comp. the remarks on the important passage Acts xix 
1, ff.) 


Joun IV. 10-12. 375 


ing the relationship and origin of the Samaritans belong to Jew- 
ish history.* Concerning the time of the origin of the sect, I 
refer the reader to the Programm of Sieffert : de tempore schismatis 
ecclesiastici Judeeos inter et Samaritanos oborti. Regiom. 1828. He 
decides for the account of Nehemiah, and against that of Josephus 
(who brings the origin of the Samaritans down to the time of Alex- 
ander the Great), and supposes that the rise of the sect, by the 
establishment of a worship of their own on Mount Gerizim in the 
known manner, took place during the reign of Artaxerxes Longi- 
manus, which lasted from 464 to 425 B.c. But an entirely different 
view has recently been propounded by Hengstenberg (on the Au- 
thenticity of the Pentateuch). He is of opinion that the Samaritans 
contained no Isrelitish element at all, but that they were merely a 
mixture of some heathen races. For my own part, I have not been 
able to convince myself of the correctness of this hypothesis. Even 
Hengstenberg finds himself compelled to acknowledge, according to 
the intimations of Acts x. 28,1. 8, that the Samaritans are not 
placed on a level with the heathen. But what other ground was 
there for distinguishing them from the heathen than that they con- 
tained Israelitish elements ? All the declarations of Christ and of 
the apostles respecting them, perfectly explain themselves, on the 
assumption that the Samaritans had not kept their origin pure, and 
thus had corrupted their knowledge of God. 

Ver. 10-12.—F rom conflicting national relations, the Redeemer 
leads the thoughts of the woman to himself. In order powerfully 
to excite her attention, Jesus employs a request which he had made 
to her for a draught of water, as a means of suggesting to her a 
similar request for spiritual invigoration. Liicke has justly re- 
marked, that the gift of God (δωρεὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ) cannot possibly be the 
Saviour himself, since καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι, and who it is, etc., is 
added ; the expression, on the contrary, indicates the opportunity 
to hear him, and to learn from him. The woman at first understands 
the living water (ὕδωρ ζῶν) as signifying merely fresh spring-water, 
and supposes that Jesus refers to some mode of obtaining water 
more quickly than she does ; on this account she points him to the 
depth of the well. (According to the tradition of travellers, it is 105 
feet deep, and contains only five feet of water), Still, conceiving it 
possible that he may mean another well, she adds, “surely thou 
wouldst not wish to have a better well than this glorious one, out 
of which our father Jacob and his sons drank !’ De Wette here 
suddenly presents himself as the defender of the double sense, and 
says, that living water signifies at the same time fresh water and 
water of life. Thus the truth ever practically prevails in spite of 
opposition, and thrusts into the back ground those circumscribed 


* Comp. the Comment. on Luke ix. 53, and John iv. 21. 


376 Joun IV. 13, 14. 


- 
principles which men labour to establish without any practical 
foundation. 

Ver. 13, 14.—The Lord thereupon unfolds to her the wonderful 
nature of the water that he means, and which he had called living 
water (ver. 10). By this Jesus evidently does not intend his doc- 
trine, or, to speak generally, anything abstract, communicable in 
opinions, but the element of his life itself. As he says: ‘‘ I am the 
bread of life,” so also he himself is the water of life (ὕδωρ τῆς ζωῆς), 
in which he gives life to the world. (Comp. John vi. 33, 35.)* 
Hence the point of comparison—as in the case of light, it is the 
principle which enlightens and imparts the knowledge of reality, so 
in the case of water, is that which invigorates, quickens, quenches 
thirst, and satisfies desire. Moreover, the life of the Redeemer, as 
the eternal itself, allays αὐΐ the craving of a man’s heart in his mor- 
tal state—a craving which never can be more than momentarily 
appeased by the creation of that which is transitory, because, in its | 
ultimate principle, it constantly refers to that which is eternal—for 
ever and ever. This life imparts full satisfaction (περισσόν, John x. 
10), assuages all thirst of desire (John vi. 35), The parallel, Sirach 
xxiv. 21, is interesting. There the same thought is expressed in- 
versely thus: ‘“‘ he who drinks of me (the essential Wisdom) ever 
thirsts after me,” ὦ. e., his longing is then drawn away from all that 
is perishable, and entirely concentrated upon that continual enjoy- 
ment of the imperishable which is always accessible to man. The 
different form of expression in the two passages might be explained 
thus: in Sirach the revelation of Wisdom in its entire fulness, is 
conceived of according to the Old Testament point of view, as iz 
process ; whereas in John it is regarded rather as that which has 
taken place.t 

As a second peculiarity of this living water, we are pointed to 
its creative nature. Having issued from the eternal fountain, it 
creates in the mind of him who receives it a self-sustaining fountain 
(πηγὴ ὕδατος). ὁ (Comp. John vii. 38. Sir. xxiv. 30-34, where the 
same thought is expressed.) Thus, it not only satisfies the need of 
the individual, but renders him a fructifying fountain for those 
around him. The depth of the meaning being kept in view, the 


* Similarly Puilo calls the Logos ποταμὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. Comp. the passages in Gross 
mann, loc. cit. p. 59. 

+ Ullmann in the Studien (First year, No. 4, p. 791, ff.) takes a very just view of the 
difference in the modes of expression. In the Apocryphal Book he finds a designation 
of φιλοσοφία; while the saying of Christ denotes consummated σοφία itself. I only ques- 
tion whether a distinct citation from the Apocrypha is here to be supposed. I am far 
more disposed to regard it as a spontaneous coincidence in an obvious figure. 

¢ A better physical illustration of the idea is afforded by the comparison with fire, a 
spark of which in susceptible matter calls forth a new flame. So also the fire of the 
Spirit which Jesus came to kindle (Luke xii. 49) extends itse}f from one heart to another 
through the universe, by means of the kindling spark emitted from his heart of love 


Joun LV. 15-22, 377 


passage may be taken thus: “ the water is in him a spring of spark- 
ling (ὡλλομένου == ζῶντος) water, for eternal life,” or, “‘ which springs 
up into eternal life.” The latter connexion, however, is to be pre- 
ferred as the simpler. The sense is this: ‘the element of life 
which issues from the parent fountain of life must also return to its 
primitive source.” That which is eternal rests not until it has 
reached the eternal. 

Ver. 15-18.—The simple woman was unable to comprehend the 
greatness of such a thought ; but still the word of the Lord, spoken 
with the power of inspiration, sounded in her heart, and called her 
to a nobler life. She longed for such water as imparts full satisfac- 
tion, yet could not rise entirely above the sensuous ; hence the pe- 
culiar form of her request, in which longing for what is higher is 
blended with the sensuous. This incitement Christ now employs 
in order, by an unveiling of her inward state, to awaken deep 
repentance in her heart, as essential to her reception of power 
from above. Every attempt to refer what Jesus here discloses to 
the woman of her own life, to previous communications received 
concerning her, must be rejected, as contrary to the view of the nar- 
rator, who presupposes in Christ the ability to discover the depths 
of hearts. (Comp. John ii. 24, vi. 64.) The effort of those expos- 
itors who endeavour to vindicate the woman, is evidently to be 
regarded as an entire failure; on the very circumstance of her 
guilt lies in this place all the stress. After having had five husbands, 
she lives in illicit connexion with another man.* This disclosure 
of her secret sin, in which she thought herself unobserved, awoke 
her slumbering life. 

Ver. 19, 20.—She recognizes in Christ a prophet (not the pro- 
phet = the Messiah, comp. vi. 14, 15), and immediately consults 
him respecting the great controversy between Jews and Samaritans. 
Probably she sought also to divert the conversation, and thus to get 
rid of the pressure produced by the view of her sins. (The moun- 
tain on which the temple of the Samaritans stood was called ox, 
Gerizim, LXX. Γαριζίν, Moses enjoined that the blessing to be 
uttered, Deut. xi. 29; xxvii, 12, 13; just over against it lay 
Mount Ebal, where the curse was to.be pronounced. When An- 
tiochus Epiphanes destroyed the temple, the ane merely re- 
built an altar.) 

Ver. 21, 22.—The Lord now introduces the woman to a higher 
point of view, above both of the contending opinions. Yet before 
proceeding to the detail (ver. 28, 24), he pronounced an unequivocal 


* Meyer takes the words καὶ viv ὃν ἔχεις, obi ἔστι cov ἀνήρ, and he whom thou now hast, 
etc., as indicating that this last husband had not been faithful to the woman, as she had 
formerly not been faithful to her husbands. Of this, however, nothing is to be found in 
the text; the large number of her husbands would only point out her insatiable desire, 
but not that she had practiced adultery. 


378 Joun IV, 23, 24. 


judgment against the Samaritans. This appears remarkable, con- 
sidering that the Jews gave themselves up to such a manifestly cul- 
pable hatred of the Samaritans. But the thing here spoken of is 
not the subjective position in which the Jews certainly committed 
great errors, but the objective state of the case. In this, right was 
on the side of the Jews. Even the separate Divine worship of the 
Samaritans was the result of sinful anger on account of just pun- 
ishment.* Then, the Samaritans adopted merely the Pentateuch, 
and consequently were without essential parts of God’s word, 
specially the Prophets, which contain such important predictions 
concerning the Messiah. And lastly, the self-appointed arrange- 
ment of their worship was opposed to the Divine will, according to 
which the sanctuary of God’s people was to be on Mount Zion. 
Hence the Lord might well say: ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε, 7 ye 
worship what ye do not know, and the only right course was, that 
the Samaritans should relinquish their schism. Because they did 
not do so, they robbed themselves of the opportunity of believing 
in the Saviour of the world, whom, as the Jewish Messiah, they 
would not recognize, The consequence was that up to the latest 
times they maintained a sectarian union. (Σωτηρία, salvation, 
stands as an abstract for the concrete = ὁ σωτήρ, the Saviour. In 
the Divine government of the world, place and time are precisely 
fixed ; as the people from whom the Messiah should come, so in like 
manner, the family from which he should descend, and the town in 
which he should be born, were appointed. To these arrangements, 
man cannot oppose his arbitrary fancies, without bringing upon 
himself essential injury.) Finally, the Samaritans believed in a 
future great Teacher, whom they called ann, ‘‘ the Converter.” But 
they appear to have regarded this desired one merely as a prophet, 
without attributing to him any higher significance. 

Ver. 23, 24.—Jesus now returns to the description which he had 
commenced (ver, 21), of a new, higher form of Divine worship, and 
portrays it in prophetic vision, precisely as it was subsequently real- 
ized—imuch as everything at present seemed to speak against it. 
He styles it indeed a future phenomenon, but still in him, and the 
small circle of life formed by him, already present in the germ ; 
just as the kingdom of God is at once a present and a future king- 
dom, (Respecting the form ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν frequently oc- 


* A son of Joiada the high-priest (Josephus in the Archzeol. xi. 8, calls him Manasse) 
married the daughter of Sanballat, the Persian Satrap of Samaria. Nehemiah on this 
account chased him away (Nehem. xiii. 28), and Manasse fled to his pipes where 
he established the new worship on Mount Gerizim. 

+ The reading © for ὅ in all probability arose from προσκυνεῖν in the New Testament 
being usually construed with the dative. Still it frequently occurs with the accusative. 
The words προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε are best understood thus, “Ye are without the true 
knowledge of God.” Comp. Matth. xxii. 29, 


Joun IV, 23, 24. 379 


curring in John, comp. the remarks on John v. 25; 1 John ii. 18.) 
Now, the true worship which the Lord here describes is placed in 
opposition, not so much to that which is false (ψευδώνυμος), as to 
that which is imperfect, undeveloped. All Old Testament saints 
prayed to God according to his will and appointment, under the 
restrictions of time and place ; this did not constitute a false devo- 
tion ; and in like manner, the worship of every infantile, unde- 
veloped mind must be limited to season and locality. Hence the 
ἀληθινός, true, is, as we often find it in John (comp. i. 9), that 
which corresponds with the perfect ideal. (The substantive form 
προσκυνητής occurs again neither in the New Testament nor 
elsewhere, except in an inscription. Comp. Liicke, p. 530, note.) 
The worship of God, in its highest conception, is that which is most 
homogeneous with the Divine nature. Now God is Spirit, and as 
such, elevated above space and time ; hence the devotion which is 
in Spirit (ἐν πνεύματι), uttering itself independently of time and 
place, never ceasing, subject to no external conditions, carried on in 
the inner sanctuary of man, constitutes the only true worship of God, 
a. 6. the only worship which corresponds to its ideal. Spirit, how- 
ever, being reality itself, the worship which is in Spirit, is also called 
in truth (ἐν ἀληθείᾳ). (Comp. the remarks on 1. 14.) Moreover, it 
was through Christ that the truth (see i. 17) first came, 7. e. ap- 
peared in humanity itself; and, therefore, it was only through him 
and with him that worship in spirit and truth could commence, 
Thus the words “in spirit and in truth” (ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ) 
are to be understood in the connexion, as contrasted with “ in this 
mountain” (ἐν ὄρει τούτῳ), and ‘in Jerusalem” (ἐν ‘TepoooAvporc, ver. 
20). In contrast with that restriction to time and place, in reiation 
to God, which always presupposes the want of essential spiritual 
power, another state is presented, viz., that of being filled with the 
Spirit and reality, as the condition of true adherence to God. Thus 
Augustine, in describing the antithesis between the Old and New 
Testaments, finely remarks : Si forte queeris aliquem locum altum, 
aliquem locum sanctum, intus exhibe te templum Deo, In templo 
vis orare, in te ora, The same thought is thus expressed by Ter- 
steegen, an eminent mystic of modern times: 


Once for prayer and lonely thought 
Fitting time and place I sought ; 
Now in heart I always praye 

Am alone* where’er I stray, 


The above interesting words of the Lord have been interpreted 
as though ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ were equivalent to πνευματικῶς καὶ 


* Alone, i. 6. freed from all adherence to the creature, and in communion with nono 
but God, the Eternal and the Only. The Mystics term this state of constant inward 
devotion, life in the Divine presence. (Comp. the remarks on Luke xviii. 1, ff.) 


380 Joun IV. 25-27. 


ἀληθῶς, t. 6. with a pure sincere spirit ; but this interpretation is to 
be rejected, because it proceeds from the interchange of πνεῦμα with 
ψυχή or καρδία ; besides which, it is evident that long before Christ, 
many Jews and Gentiles had worshipped God sincerely. The true — 
idea of ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, in spirit and truth, is gained by a 
right apprehension of the antithesis. The Redeemer does not here 
controvert the errors existing among the Gentiles or Samaritans, 
but places his sublime revelation in contrast with that of the Old 
Testament, which was of a lower kind, and in which the Samari- 
tans participated, although imperfectly. The latter was the ex- 
ternal (σάρξ), whilst Christ taught an internal (πνεῦμα) worship, 
which was not like the Old Testament form, confined to time and 
place. The service of the Old Testament was not false (ψεῦδος) but 
(σκιά) a mere shadowy form consisting of types, symbols, and pre- 
sentiments ; on the contrary, that of Christ was the real essence 
itself (ἀλήθεια), which the former but foreshadowed, and was thus 
the fulfillment of all that the former typified. According to another 
view of this passage, which we must notice, ‘in spirit and truth” 
means the justness of those conceptions which the worshipper must 
have respecting God ; such just conceptions being the mere result 
of life in the Spirit, and this being possible only through the com- 
munication of the Spirit from above. But under the existing separ- 
ation in man between knowing and being, many just conceptions 
concerning God may be adopted without the possession of real 
Divine life, and inversely. Hence we can only understand the words 
as referring to the new, higher element of life which the Lord came 
to bring down from heaven, so that to worship God in the Spirit and 
in truth is not to be regarded as a matter of resolution and good 
will; the natural man, without power from above, is held in the 
fetters of sense; he cannot worship God in a godly manner, be- 
cause he is ungodly, until he has in faith received Divine power and 
truth, 

Ver, 25-27.—Although the Samaritan woman may now have 
caught a glimpse of the deep meaning in the words which Jesus 
addressed to her, its essence certainly escaped her. All she knew 
-was that something great and exalted was promised ; and for the 
distinct disclosure of this she looked to the coming Messiah, from 
whom it had been usual to expect the solution of every difficulty, 
as well as the relief of all need. (The Samaritans entertained sub- 
stantially the opinions of Jews concerning the Messiah ; but the 
notions of the Samaritans certainly were not so clear as those of 
the Israelites, although perhaps less alloyed by political elements.) 
The Saviour hereupon unequivocally declared to her that he was 
the Messiah. (Ἐγώ εἰμι is a concise expression, like the Hebrew xx 
sy. According to the connexion, ὁ Χριστός is to be supplied.) This 


Joun IV. 28-34, 381 


open declaration of his Messiahship appears opposed to those nu- 
merous instances recorded by the synoptical Evangelists, in which, 
those who recognized him as the Messiah, were prohibited from 
making it known. (On this subject comp. the Comm. Matth. viii. 
4.) Doubtless the reason of the unreserved expressions employed 
by Christ concerning his sublime dignity may here be found 
the simplicity of the woman, and of the inhabitants of Sichem 
generally. They were strangers to those political views which the 
Jews entertained, and therefore they afforded no such ground for 
apprehending misconstructions, The disciples, on their return from 
the city, wonder that Jesus should take the trouble to converse with 
a woman (the Jews even now regard the female sex as unfit to be 
instructed in the law),* but delicacy restrains them from venturing 
to ask him what he has said to her. A difficulty might here be felt 
respecting the witnesses to the conversation with the woman ; but, 
on the one hand, it is not said that all the disciples were gone into 
the city, and perhaps our Evangelist was present at the interview ; 
while, on the other hand, either Christ himself or the Sichemites 
may have communicated the particulars of it to the disciples dur- 
ing their residence in the city (iv. 43). Suppositions of this kind 
cannot be considered strange if the relation between Christ and 
the disciples be viewed in a perfectly simple, natural manner. 
The powerful effects of the conversation, which they beheld, would 
necessarily direct their attention towards it, and then from one 
quarter or ancther they would receive the desired information con- 
cerning it. 

Ver. 28-30.—The declaration of Christ, that he is the Messiah, 
is now united in the mind of the woman with the disclosures of 
Jesus respecting her life (ver. 16, ff), and she believes in him ; she 
then hastens back into the city to confirm her conviction by the 
judgment of her fellow-citizens, 

Ver. 831-34.—The Lord—ever living in the consciousness of his 
lofty calling—after the withdrawal of the woman, seeks to awaken 
the deeper life in his disciples. Filled with thoughts of bodily in- 
vigoration, they invite their heavenly master to take refreshment 
with them. But the Redeemer conducts them into the depth of 
his inner life, which, by this happy interview witha childlike nature, 
had become so thoroughly invigorated in the power of the Spirit 
from above, that the soul strengthened the body.f The disciples, 
but little accustomed as yet to the spirituality of the words of 
Jesus, think of physical nourishment which may have reached him 


* Contempt of the female sex has been shared by the Jews with the Orientals gener: 
ally ; in this respect they form the most striking contrast with the Germanic nations among 
whom the honour paid to woman has often been perverted into idolatry. 

{ On this subject compare the remarks in the Comm. on 2 Cor. ix. 10, 11. 


382 Joun IV. 35-38. 


in some unknown way, until the Lord unfolds to them his meaning 
in further discourse. (The ἔργον, work, is Christ’s whole work of 
redemption, as the will (θέλημα) of God tohim. Doing and finishing 
(ποιεῖν, τελειοῦν) are to be taken as comprehending also the influence 
of the Spirit of Christ. Activity in promoting the kingdom of God, 
as it were, opened within the Lord one source of power after an- 
other, and it was this that refreshed and strengthened him. I class 
this passage with those in which ἵνα cannot without harshness be 
understood τελικῶς, [Comp. Winer’s Gram, 4th edit. p. 312.] The 
sense here is not ‘‘ that I may be able to do the will of God,” but 
“ the doing itself constitutes the invigdration.”) 

Ver. 35.—The discourse of Christ now takes a somewhat differ- 
ent turn, which, as both ancient and modern expositors agree, is 
sufficiently accounted for on the supposition that the Lord just then 
saw the inhabitants of Sichem pouring forth from the city towards 
himself. To this animating scene Jesus directs the eyes of the dis- 
ciples, pointing to the flock of people in need of salvation, and 
comparing them to crops ripe for the harvest. Moreover, we are 
doubtless to think of Jesus as surrounded by germinating corn fields, 
to which the first words ἔτε τετράμηνός ἐστι x. τ. λ., have reference. 
(The textus receptus reads τετράμηνον sc. διάστημα, But Griesbach, 
who is followed by Schulz, has adopted τετράμηνος sc. χρόνος on the 
authority of several distinguished manuscripts.) This expression 
may relate to the early crops which ripened rapidly, and having 
been sown in December, might be reaped as soon as April, at Easter. 
At all events we may conclude that Jesus spoke these words during 
the seed-time, which varied from October to December, according 
to the climate of Palestine. Hence it is most obvious that accord- 
ing to John also, the chronology is uncertain. Chap. ii. 18, Jesus 
was going to the Passover, and in the accounts which follow, there 
are so few dates, that so far as the text is concerned, we might as 
well suppose that these words were uttered in May as in December, 
but for the incidental expression which here becomes our guide— 
Finally, in the comparison of the earthly with the spiritual seed 
in this verse, the ἔτι, yet, and ἤδη, already, are to be understood 
as antitheses. In the former instance the seed is first scattered in 
hope, in the latter case the harvest 7s already come. This is plainly 
indicated by ver. 88, where the disciples are represented as reapers 
who have not sown. 

Ver. 36-88.—The expansion of the metaphor is very perspicuous, 
and several of the principal ideas, such as receiving wages, gather- 
ing fruit (μισθὸν λαμβάνειν, συνάγειν καρπόν) have already been ex- 
plained in the Comm. on Matth. xx. 1, ff. iii, 12. The only obscu- 
rity is as to the strict intention of Christ respecting the applicability 


Joun IV. 36-38. 383 


of the proverb* in this case. (λόγος --- παροιμία, 2 Pet. ii. 22. Gries- 
bach prefers the reading ὁ ἀληθινός to that without the article ; 
thus, the thought is more emphatic: ‘that proverb which holds 
true of so many relations: how many a man must undertake 
something from which he enjoys no fruit !”) Here, again, ἀληθινός 
is but apparently synonymous with ἀληθής. The article indicates 
that the meaning of the words is: “while, in many relations, 
the well-known adage has its relative truth, here, in reference 
to spiritual things, it holds in the highest, and absolute sense.” 
If it be said, as the ancient expositors understood the passage, 
that the ἄλλοι, others (ver. 38), were Moses and the prophets, 
while the believing susceptibility which was discovered in the 
hearts of the Samaritans constituted the harvest resulting from 
their preaching, then Jesus himself appears as one of the reapers ; 
but it is evident that this is not the meaning of the words, for in 
thet case the language must have been : ἡμεῖς θερίζομεν, we reap. 
Hence modern interpreters say that Christ was the sower, and that 
the apostles were, at a later period, to see the result of his labour, 
of which Christ himself saw nothing more on earth. The plural 
(ἄλλοι, ver. 38), it is argued, was employed merely on account of the 
reference to the proverb, and simply refers to Jesus. But, in that 
case, the antithesis (ver. 35), which contrasts the spiritual harvest, 
as already matured, with the earthly, would not be at all appropri- 
ate ; setting aside the fact that even the apostles never beheld more 
than the beginnings of the results from the Lord’s ministry. The 
passage is clear only when explained according to Matth. xxiii. 34 ; 
Luke xi. 49. Christ represents himself as the Husbandman, who 
has the direction both of the sowing and of the harvest, who com- 
missions a// agents—those of the Old Testament as well as those of 
the New—and therefore does not stand at all on a level with either 
the sowers or the reapers. In relation to the Old Testament, its 
ministers, and their work, the Lord speaks of the disciples as those 
who are sent into the harvest ; since the great end of the law dis- 
played itself as already realized in the desire of the Sichemites after 
Divine things. Thus the primary reference is neither to the future 
harvest of the apostles, nor to the seed just scattered by Christ ; 
but the attention of the disciples is drawn to the gracious character 
of their calling, in that the prophets of the Old Testament had 
toiled so laboriously before them, But the richness of the thought 
in passages like this, allows us to say also of the present, in relation 
to the time of the apostles,+ that we have come into their labonr ; 


* A similar proverb is found among the Greeks: ἄλλοι μὲν σπειρουσ' ἄλλοι δ᾽ αὖ dure 
σονται. 

+ This passage contains abundant encouragement for faithful witnesses to the truth, who 
see little or no fruit from their labour. There are preachers who sow as well as preachers 
who reap, and what the latter reap has often been sown by faithful predecessors. 


384 Joun LY. 39-43. 


they have borne the heat and burden of the day for us, who have 
been called at the eleventh hour. (Comp. the remarks on Matth. 
ee. 

= 39-42.—The Samaritans were less influenced by the rigid 
fetters of Pharisaism than the Jews, and hence they easily turned 
to the Gospel. They recognized in Christ the Redeemer of the 
world, and filled with longing after thorough knowledge, they en- 
treated him to remain amongst them. The Lord granted them two 
days for the confirmation of their faith.* 

This passage is interesting in regard to the signification of the 
word πιστεύειν. ἡ Mere historical credit given to accounts of this or 
that person (πιστεύειν διὰ τὴν λαλιὰν τῆς γυναικός---λαλιά —= λόγος, 
ver. 39, comp. John viii. 43) is different from the faith (πιστεύειν) 
arising from personal experience (ἀκηκόαμεν καὶ οἴδαμεν, ver, 42.) If, 
indeed, the Redeemer had been like any other man, his word:could 
have had no more weight than that of any other, and in support of 
his own cause, still less, But as the sun proves its presence and its 
nature merely by the light and the animating warmth which it im- 
parts ; so Christ, as the sun of the spiritual world, in all ages past, 
and even to this day, has had but one witness for himself, viz., his 
own operation upon souls. By this one means he so entirely takes 
possession of all unprejudiced minds, that through the reception of 
his higher vital energies, it becomes to them experimentally certain 
that the salvation of the world rests in him. Hence conceptions of 
the truth and doctrinal knowledge are not primary sources of the 
life of faith, but effects resulting from the reception of the spiritual 
element. (Comp. the remarks on John iv. 24.) 

This incident, finally, is remarkable, as forming the only instance 
in which the ministry of the Lord produced an awakening on a 
large scale. Ordinarily we find only a few individuals aroused by 
him, and these, as the germs of a new and higher order of things, 
scattered here and there among the whole people. According to 
the testimony of Acts viii. that which now germinated in Samaria 
subsequently advanced to pleasing blossom. 


§ 8. Toe Hearine or AN Orricer’s CHILD. 
(John iv. 43-54.) 


The adaptation of this narrative to the design of the Gospel is 
not immediately seen. It quite accords with the histories of the 
cure as given by the synoptical Evangelists ; as such, however, it 

* Respecting this request, Chrysostom very finely says that the real meaning of the 


petitioners was, διηνεκῶς αὐτὸν κατέχειν, perpetually to possess him. 
{ Comp. the Comm. on Matth. viii. 1, ix. 1, xiii, 58, xvii. 20. 


Joun IV. 43-46. 385 


could not be of importance to John, especially since there are no 
discourses of Jesus connected with it. The account was valuable 
to him only so far as, like the previous narrative, it represented the 
formation of faith in the mind of an individual. The healing only 
served his purpose in so far as it helped to conduct the βασιλικός 
more quickly and more radically into the life of faith. Accordingly, 
the account is to be regarded merely as a supplement to those pre- 
ceding. 

Ver. 43-46.—F rom Sichem Jesus went into Galilee. It is re- 
markable that ver. 44 is connected with this statement by for, (γάρ). 
It would seem that the consideration that a prophet had no honour 
in his native land must have prevented the Redeemer from going to 
Galilee sooner. If indeed we could with Liicke, understand πατρίς, 
country, as referring to Judeea, because Jesus was born in Bethle- 
hem, the difficulty would be solved ; but this supposition is unten- 
able, because ver. 44 evidently relates to the occurrence mentioned, 
Luke iv. 16, ff. In like manner the acceptation of γάρ in the sense 
of although would remove all doubt, if such an arbitrary inter- 
change of the particles were allowable. Meyer sees in ver, 44 a 
justification of the circumstance that Jesus had so long been ab- 
sent from Galilee. But in that case this thought must have been 
distinctly expressed in ver. 43. Tholuck resorts to the hypothesis 
that ‘‘this is the γάρ which indicates the reason, and is sometimes 
placed at the beginning of a sentence in which anything is accounted 
for. John wished to shew the reason why he mentioned that the 
Galileans received Jesus in a favourable manner, viz., that Jesus had 
once testified the contrary respecting his native land.” The turn 
thus given to the passage need not be altogether rejected ; but 
still it seems to me probable that if such a course of thought had 
been passing through the Evangelist’s mind, he would have indica- 
ted it by a μέν or a word of that sort. Hence I prefer to adopt the 
more precise definition of εἰς τὴν Ταλιλαίαν furnished by ver. 46, ‘to 
Galilee, ὦ. e., to Cana and not to Nazareth ;” πατρίς is then to be 
taken as meaning not the province, but the native city. This view 
is strengthened by the consideration that John here, as in several 
other instances, supposes the event to which he alludes as already 
known from the synoptical Evangelists, and from the general evan- 
gelical tradition current in the Church, The remark in ver. 45, that 
the Galileans had witnessed the miracles wrought by the Lord at 
the feast (ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ), indicates that the Redeemer had only at- 
tended this one feast at Jerusalem since he entered upon his min- 
istry, although, according to iv. 35, he might also have been present 
at least at the feast of tabernacles (in October), and perhaps at the 
feast of dedication (in December). 

An inquiry concerning the βασιλικός suggests one question es- 

Vou. 11.--2Σὅ 


386 Joun IV. 47-54. 


pecially, viz., whether this account is identical with the statements 
in Matth. viii. 5; ff.; Luke vii. 2, ff., as Semler in particular as- 
serts ; for βασιλικός, (strictly, pertaining to a king, royal) may be 
understood as meaning either a military or a civil officer of a βασιλεύς, 
king (here of Herod Antipas). In the first sense, the expression 
might be parallel with the word centurion in Matthew and Luke. 
But Liicke and Tholuck have aptly shewn that a difference between 
the occurrences is far more probable, and that on this account βασι- 
λικός should be taken as meaning a civil officer. For, on the one 
hand, there are very many even external discrepancies between the 
two accounts, while, on the other (and this decides the whole ques- 
tion), the character displayed by the centurion in Matthew and Luke 
is altogether different from what is seen in this Baovduxoc. The 
former appears to be a model of humility and faith, so that he 
awakens the astonishment of the Son of God himself; the latter, 
on the contrary, being immediately anxious only for assistance in 
temporal need, attains to faith by painful struggles. 

Ver, 47, 48.—The words of Jesus unless ye see signs, etc. (ἐὰν 
μὴ σημεῖα, κ. τ. 2.) evidently imply rebuke. It may have referred not 
only to him, but also to the concourse of people who were present ; 
at all events it applied to him. But it is equally evident that this 
censure of the love of marvels does not in the least derogate from 
the importance of miracles themselves. (Comp. the Comm. on 
Matth, viii. 1.) The design of miracles is neither to gratify curi- 
osity and vanity, nor to compel opponents to believe, but to furnish 
those who have already surrendered to the power of truth, witha 
proof of the legitimate authority of Divine messengers. 

Ver. 49-51.—The officer, without allowing the rebuke to divert 
him from his object, again appeals to the Lord for help. (Κατάβηθι 
is employed because Capernaum lay low down by the sea-coast.) 
The Lord then puts the father’s faith to the test, and increases it, 
by causing him to trust in his mere word. Without seeing and 
touching the patient, which appears to the man who is guided only 
by the senses the easier way of effécting a cure, Christ simply ut- 
ters the assurance of his restoration. (On the subject of the father’s 
faith and the son’s recovery, comp. the remarks on Matth. xvii, 
14, ff.) 

Ver, 52-54.—The troubled father anxiously inquires of the ser- 
vants who hasten to him with the news of the child’s convalescence, 
at what hour the recovery commenced ; and when he learns that it 
was the hour (the careful John expressly mentions that it was the 
seventh) in which Jesus spake the word, his faith in the Lord in- 
creases. (Κομψός occurs in the New Testament only here. Its 
primary meaning is “adorned,” “ handsome;” here it is employed 
as equivalent to βελτίων, Arrian. diss, Epict. iil. 10, κομψῶς ἔχειν 


Joun V. 1. 387 


also occcurs = the Latin belle habere.) John, alluding to his 
account of the miracle at Cana (ii. 11), calls this the second σημεῖον, 
z.e., in the neighbourhood. This computation cannot apply to the 
miracles of Jesus in general, because he had already performed 
several in Jerusalem, (Comp. iv. 45.) 


§ 9. HEALING oF THE Sick Man ΑἹ Betuespa. 
(John vy. 1-47.) 


The following account of the cure of a man who had been ill 
thirty-eight years is evidently inserted, not for its own sake, but only 
as the historical basis of the Redeemer’s weighty discourse which 
follows it. In this discourse Jesus speaks concerning his relation 
to the Father, in such a manner that the peculiar office of Christ 
stands forth with special clearness, and thus the entire section sus- 
tains the most definite connexion with the general design of the 
Evangelist. 

Ver. 1—Without giving particulars (according to the best 
codices, even the article is wanting before ἑορτή), John remarks that 
a feast again fell due, and that the Lord went up to Jerusalem to 
attend it. The question arises what feast is meant? How few 
data there are for the settlement of this question with certainty, 
may be seen from the very fact that there is not a Jewish feast 
which one expositor or another would not discoverhere. Butif the 
passage is taken impartially in its connexion with what precedes 
and with what follows, it becomes in the highest degree probable 
(for in this instance we cannot go beyond probability) that the feast 
spoken of cannot be either a Passover or one falling in the last 
months of the year. The first supposition is opposed not only by 
the absence of the article (since the Passover as the principal feast 
is usually called the feast (ἡ ἑορτή) John iv. 45, xi. 56, xii. 12), but 
especially by the passage vi. 4. Here express mention is made of 
an approaching Passover, and therefore if the feast in question were 
a Passover, the words after this (vi. 1), would of necessity include 
more than a whole year. For no one is likely to espouse the ut- 
terly untenable interpretation of ἐγγὺς ἦν τὸ πάσχα, the Passover 
was near (vi. 4), as meaning that “the Passover had just taken 
place.”* On the other hand, the theory that it was one of those an- 

* ’Eyyv¢ always involve the idea of something nearly approaching ; the term is pri- 
marily derived from the impression produced upon the senses by having an object before 
one. Then transferred to the inward perception, ἐγγύς means “close at hand in the 
future,” not ‘just past.” There is only one case in which ἐγγύς may be taken in the lat- 


ter sense, viz., when the narrator is proceeding backwards from the present into the past. 
Thus, if we were passing from the present through the time of Reformation up to the 


388 Joun V. 2. 


nual feasts which followed the Passover mentioned ii. 13, viz., the 
Feast of Pentecost, Tabernacles, or Dedication (in October and De- 
cember), is contradicted by the circumstance that, according to iv. 
35, there were only four months to the harvest. Hence the simplest 
theory is, that here the feast of Purim is meant, which was observed 
in March.* This is equally consistent with what precedes (iv. 35), 
and with the sequel (vi. 4) ; since iv. 45, 46, 54, indicate a longer 
interval, whilst the Passover was kept only a month later than 
Purim. (Comp. on the Μαρδοχαϊκὴ ἡμέρα, 2 Macc, xv, 36.) The 
early Fathers also, for the most part, regarded this passage as not 
referring to a Passover ; and hence they supposed that Jesus ob- 
served only three Passovers during his ministry,} reckoning the 
whole public life of the Lord, accordingly, as limited to between two 
and three years. It was not till after the time of Theodoret that 
prophetic statements were discovered in Daniel, intimating that the 
Messiah would exercise his ministry for three or four years, and since 
then our passage has been explained as alluding to a Passover. 
Very recently the ancient view has been revived. But this passage 
shews how little even the Gospel of John is adapted to form a sure 
foundation for a chronology of the life of Jesus. 

Ver. 2.—On account of the difficulty in determining the locality 
in Jerusalem, many variations have crept into the codices in this 
verse. Some read merely ἐν ‘IepocoAvporg κολυμβήθρα ; others con- 
nect προβατική, sometimes in the nominative, sometimes in the 
dative, with κολυμβήθρα (thus, sheep-pool). But the ordinary read- - 
ing had the best guarantee, and is therefore adopted by all the best 
modern critics. Only Gersdorf (in his Beitr. Ζ. Sprachchar p. 58) 
reads ἡ προβατικὴ κολυμβήθρα, ἡ λεγομένη, κ. τ. A. But we know noth- 
ing of ἃ sheep-pond, whereas we do know that in Jerusalem there 
was a sheep-gate (with προβατικῇ, πύλῃ is to be supplied). (Nehem. 
ili, 1, 32; xii. 39.) Near this lay the pool, containing a medicinal 


middle ages, it might be said “we have now nearly reached the time of Christ.” But 
such a retrogressive narration has no existence in John. 

* Some doubt respecting the hypothesis, that the feast of Purim is here intended, 
might arise from the circumstance that this festival was of later origin than the others, 
and the command of the Mosaic law (in which we certainly must look for the reason ot 
the Lord’s journeys to the feasts), that all males should appear before the Lord three 
times a year, at the feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles (Exod. xxiii. 14. ff) 
had no respect to this festival. But since we see that the Redeemer attended the Feast 
of Dedication (John x. 22), to which also the above requirement did not refer, there is 
no reason why we should not suppose that he was present at the Feast of Purim. At 
the same time, of course, we need not ascribe to Christ the extravagant notions of the 
Jews concerning the importance of the festival. According to Tholuck, it is said in the 
Gemera, “The Feast of Dedication will one day be discontinued, but not that of Purim; 
the Prophets will cease, but not the Book of Esther.” 

+ Respecting the views of the Alexandrines, who suppose only a year and some 


months, comp. the Comm. on Luke iv. 18. Concerning the different opinion of Irenzeus 
eomp. the remarks on John viii. 57. 


JoHN V. 2-5. 389 


spring, which continued to be efficacious in the time of Eusebius,* 
Here buildings were erected for the accommodation of the sick, par- 
ticularly a colonnade for protection against bad weather. Probably 
this was built by the contributions of the benevolent ; and hence the 
name βηθεσδά, 819M 2, ὦ, e., domus misericordie. (The omission of 
the = in composition frequently occurs, especially in names; 6. g., 
Ναασσών for Ναχσών, Μαθουσάλα for Μαθουσάλαχ. Comp. Kuinoel on 
the passage.) The name is variously written in the MSS., because 
it was not known to the transcribers, who, for the most part, were 
unacquainted with Hebrew. Among the different modes of spelling 
it the form Βηθζαθά or Βηζαθά is worthy of remark. This appears 
to correspond with the Hebrew xnvh nz 7. ¢., new town, and accord- 
ing to Josephus (B. J. v. 4, 2) a part of Jerusalem bore this name.t 
But the critical authorities here also decide for the retention of the 
ordinary reading, although the reading Βηθζαθά seems to have ema- 
nated from persons who possessed a local knowledge of Jerusalem. 
Ver, 3-5.—In these porches lay crowds of sufferers desiring to 
avail themselves of the virtue of the water ; among these was the 
man who had been ill for thirty-eight years (probably a paralytic, a 
cripple) whose cure is narrated. 
Here is an addition to the account (from ἐκδεχομένων to νοσήματι) 
which, according to the evidence derived from criticism, is to be 
‘regarded as spurious. Not only is it wanting in Cod. B.C., but the 
concluding words of ver. 8 are not found in Cod. A., and ver. 4 is absent 
from Cod. D. In many cursive MSS., the passage is marked with an 
asterisk or obelisk. But there is no conceivable ground for the omis- 
sion ; although the suspicion against the authenticity of the section 
is strengthened by the fact, that a great number of different readings 
occur in this appendix (some of which retain, while others omit one 
or other portion)—a circumstance usually regarded as betraying 
subsequent interpolation, The addition, finally, must be very old, 
since Tertullian, Chrysostom, and other Fathers acknowledge it, 
It is in the highest degree probable that it was introduced into the 
text from MSS. in the margin of which their owners had made this 
note from personal observation. Doubtless, therefore, it was a fact 
that the water, from time to time (κατὰ καιρόν), fitfully bubbled, and 
in such seasons the greatest efficacy was ascribed to it. Now, since 
the sick man refers to this fact (ver. 7), it was evidently very natu- 
ral to annex the above information, by way of explaining his words. 
Such is the opinion of the best modern interpreters and critics upon 
this critically suspicious passage. De Wette alone cannot deci- 


* We have already remarked, in the Introduction, § 4, that the phrase ἔστι ἐν τοῖς 
Ἱεροσολύμοις affords no evidence that the city was still standing when this Gospel was 
composed. 

+ Comp. Raumer’s Palwstina, p. 263, ff. Just. Olshausen zu Topographie des alten 
Jerusalem (Hamburg, 1833) p. 9, ff. ἢ 


390 JoHN V. 6-9. 


dedly agree in this, yet still without maintaining the authenticity 
of the words. He lays stress upon the arguments, that, in the first 
place, the omission of the paragraph is supported only by Alexan- 
drine evidence ; and, secondly, that John could hardly have con- 
cluded ver. 3 with ξηρῶν, and then have proceeded with ἦν δέ τις 
ἄνθρωπος ver. 5. But the difficulties on the other side are far great- 
er, especially since, in a.few lines, several expressions occur that are 
found nowhere else in John, in particular κίνησις, ταραχή, δήποτε, νόσημα. 
This at any rate affords ground for assuming the spuriousness of 
the passage as very probable. 

Special notice is due to the circumstance that, in this appendix, 
the movement of the water is ascribed to an angel. Even the best 
modern expositors, Liicke and Tholuck, regard this as a legend, 
and do not think it worth the trouble of a minute examination, as 
it is assuredly no genuine production of John’s. But I am quite 
convinced that although the passage did not emanate from John, it 
contains nothing incompatible with his range of ideas. It is only 
necessary to guard against the prevailing view, that the production 
of the phenomenon in the fountain by natural means is absolutely 
opposed to that accomplished supernaturally by an angel. The refer- 
ence of the phenomenon to an angel does not deny the existence and 
co-operation of natural forces ; these natural forces themselves are 
only conceived of in their higher causality. That such an idea of 
angels was not foreign to the Evangelist is clearly shewn by the 
passage i. 52, where no one can suppose the ascent and descent of 
winged beings, as angels sometimes appear, but we rather under- 
stand the copiousness of spiritual powers which rested upon the Son - 
of Man as their centre. In every physical miracle wrought by the? 
Lord, it might be said that an angel, a manifestation of Divine 
power, descended upon him; and in like manner here, a striking 
natural phenomenon is not confined to inanimate, mechanical forces 
of nature, but is traced up to the creative* living spirits of a higher 
world. (Comp. the remarks in the Comm. on Matth. 1. 18, and 
Luke v. 8, 9.) 

Ver. 6-9.—Jesus looked upon the poor sufferer, (ὅτι ἔχει scil. ἐν 
ἀσθενείᾳ, comp. ver. 5), and sought by the question, ‘‘ Wilt thou be 
made whole ?” (θέλεις ὑγιὴς γενέσθαι ;) to awaken in him the hope of 
aid, The view of Dr. Paulus, that this sick man was an impostor, 
who did not wish to appear in health, although he was so, condemns 
itself ; since the evident object of the narrator is to recount a mi- 
raculous cure performed by the Redeemer. True, the θέλεις, wilt 
thou, is somewhat remarkable ; it seems self-evident that one who 
had suffered so long, wished to be healed. But the strangeness 


* The term “creative” is employed here merely in application to instrumentality or 
agency.—[TR. 


Joun V. 10-16. 391 


vanishes when it is considered that this unhappy man had almost 
abandoned all hope of recovery ; his paralysis prevented him from 
reaching the water at the right time, when it was in motion, and 
therefore restoration appeared to him altogether out of the question. 
Hence the query was intended to awaken the desire which slum- 
bered within him, and thus to prepare him for the reception of 
those heavenly energies which were poured upon him from the 
Redeemer. 

Ver. 10-13.—The circumstance that the cure was performed on 
the Sabbath now excited the opposition of the people who were 
bound in the rigid fetters of Pharisaism. (Comp. the remarks on 
Matth. xii. 10, ff) The spectators specially censure the carrying 
of the bed as a violation of the Sabbath. The restored man exon- 
erates himself by reference to the command of his Deliverer, whose 
name he knew not, but who had inspired him with the conviction 
that he was endowed with the powers of a higher world. The com- 
mand of Jesus to carry away the bed certainly appears as a breach 
against established custom, of which we find no other trace in 
the actions of the Lord. But the superstitious manner in which 
the Jews viewed the laws of the Sabbath might render such positive 
ageression upon prevailing usage quite necessary. That Jesus by 
no means meant to sanction a tumultuous abolition of the Sabbatic 
law, is shewn by Matth. xxiv. 20. (Ἐκνεύω or éxvéw, ver. 18, occurs 
nowhere else in the New Testament. Its primary signification is 
“to avoid by turning the head aside ;” and then, in the general 
sense, ‘‘to turn away,” “‘ to withdraw.”) 

Ver. 14-16.—Soon afterwards the Lord met the restored man in 
the Temple, and sought to apply the corporeal recovery that he had 
experienced, to his spiritual restitution. The words “sin no more,” 
(μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε) imply that the illness of the man was probably 
connected with sinful indulgences. The Redeemer in the most ex- 
press manner warns him to avoid sin, seeing that this would ever 
bring renewed injury upon him, and that all the heavier, the deeper 
his guilt, which would necessarily. increase through special experi- 
ences of grace and mercy rendered fruitless. The “worse thing” 
(χεῖρον) however, cannot apply so much to severe illness, as to pun- 
ishment in the world to come; for the full measure of earthly 
chastisement had been undergone in the sickness of thirty-eight 
years. The healed man now learned who his Benefactor was, and 
gave an unequivocal account of him to the Jews. In doing this 
he certainly had no evil design ; at all events no hint of it can be 
traced in the representation of John. Perhaps he hoped that the 
celebrated name of Jesus would stop their blasphemy. But the 
Pharisaic Sanhedrists (ver. 16) now assail the Holy Qne of God with 


892 Joun V. 17-20. 


violent persecution ; the darkness-received not the light which was 
beaming upon it (John i. 5, 11).* 

Ver. 17.—The Jews had now called the Saviour to account 
respecting his healing on the Sabbath, appealing probably to Gen. 
ii. 2,3; Exod. xx. 10,11. He replied by alleging his peculiar rela- 
tion to the Father. Jesus did not thus by any means deny the 
obligation of the Sabbath law, he merely explained more definitely 
its character. The solemnities of the Sabbath were intended te 
restore the human spirit, distracted by the diversity of earthly 
affairs, to the unity of the Divine nature Ὁ but he who, in his nature, 
perfectly reposes in this unity, observes an eternal Sabbath, and no 
activity can distract him. This rest amidst all activity belongs to 
God and to the only-begotten Son of the Father. Liicke refers the 
“working” (ἐργάζεσθαι) merely to the sustaining activity of God ; 
but in the spiritual world, the creative acvivity of God ever contin- 
ues, and therefore cannot be excluded ; indeed, preservation itself 
is in reality only a continuous creation, Spirit is power itself, and 
action is but its necessary manifestation ; but in the perfect Spirit 
this takes place without the disquietude that attends the activity of 
the created spirit drawn hither and thither by the multifariousness 
of created things. Hence in God, and in like manner in Christ, 
as his perfect reflection, absolute activity and absolute rest are 
united. 

Ver. 18-20.—This comparison, which the Lord instituted be- 
tween his heavenly Father and himself, led the opponents to a still 
graver accusation (οὐ μόνον---ἀλλὰ καὶ), viz., that he made himself 
equal with God. Now this passage (in connexion with the parallel 
John x. 25-39) is very important in determining the import of the 
expression Son of God,t{ according to the views of the Jews and in 
the mouth of Jesus himself. 

The Jews by no means recognized in this term an ordinary 
appellation of the Messiah, but thought that, in using it, he as- 
cribed to himself a dignity equal to that of God (ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιεῖς 
τῷ Θεῷ. x, 33, ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν Θεόν), which they (in their mis- 
taken views) did not acknowledge even in the Messiah, deeming 
him only an extraordinary man. The Lord, so far from declaring 
these conclusions from his words to be erroneous, now fully confirms 
them ; so that we have here a genuine declaration of the Lord con- 
cerning his essential unity and equality with the Father. With the 
most emphatic protestation (ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν), Christ asserts 


* The reading, καὶ ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι, ver. 16, is certainly spurious; it was most 
probably derived from ver. 18. 

+ As Luther finely remarks: “Thou shalt cease from thine own work, that God may 
carry on his work in thee.” 

{ For although, ver. 17, the term υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ does not occur, yet it is implied in za 
tip Hence in ver. 19 and 20, it is actually employed. 


Joun V. 21. 393 


the complete-wnity of operation between the Father and himself, 
this he states negatively, denying all action of his own will in detach- 
ment from God (οὐ δύναται 6 υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν) as well ag 
positively, the act of the Son being the act of God. Still, in the 
terms adopted, the difference of personalities appears carefully 
guarded, since it is not said: “the Father doeth in the Son” (6 πα- 
τὴρ ποιεῖ, ἐν τῷ viP)—but: ‘what things he doeth, these also doeth 
the Son likewise,” (ἃ ἐκεῖνος ποιεῖ, ταῦτα Kai ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ). The 
reduction of this unity of operation between Father and Son to ἃ 
mere so-called moral unity, although it may obtain even with a vir- 
tuous mind, through the influence of inclination, is evidently alto- 
gether opposed to the sense of our passage, in which the characteristic 
ov δύναται, cannot, indicates unity of being as the ground of unity in 
action. ‘This ground is disclosed in ver. 20, which declares love to 
be the bond between Father and Son, and consequently the reason 
of their oneness in action, (Comp. 111. 85.) The love of the Father 
to the Son is here represented as perfect se//-communication; to the 
Father belongs the shewing (δεικνύειν), to the Son the beholding 
(βλέπειν), all that God is and does. Both operations (the former 
rather as the active, the latter as the receptive) are to be conceived 
in their essence ; it is not merely in the way of representation that 
God shews to the Son, and the Son beholds, but this mysterious 
unity is carried on in essential spiritual communication, by the 
ascent and descent of Divine powers, and, as if in gradual advance- 
ment, it is manifested in ever greater and more wonderful effects. 
Ver. 21.—As a great work of this kind, the Evangelist now 
mentions, in the first place, the awakening of the dead. ( Ἐγείρειν 
is here distinguished from ζωοποιεῖν--- [6 former refers to the start- 
ling away of death, the latter to the impartation of new life.) As 
the Father has given all into the hand of the Son (iii. 35), so he 
has given to him the awakening of the dead. “He quickeneth 
whom he will (ov¢ θέλει.) This will of the Son, however, is not 
to be regarded as arbitrary and exclusive (even in the operations 
of the Son there is nothing arbitrary), but as all-comprehensive, 
and as beatifying the whole world of conscious creatures ; although, 
indeed, it does not compel to happiness, but awaits free choice. 
The difficult question, whether the spiritual or the physical awak- 
ening of the dead is here referred to, can only be decided by ver, 
25, ff. where the idea is pursued, Ver, 21, it is here presented sim- 
ply as a sublime work, belonging alone to the Father and the Son, 
as the independent sources of life (ver. 26). Meanwhile, the awak- 
ening of the dead by the Father appears different from that 


* Liicke justly remarks that the expression οὖς θέλει primarily refers to the Israel- 
ites who imagined that, as descendants of Abraham, they had a necessitating right to 
eternal happiness; to this right is oppos2d the will of God. 


394 Joun V,. 22, 23. 


wrought by the Son. The former is the Old Testament awakening, 
which we recognize, for example, in the life of David ; while the 
latter is that of the New Testament. The former is the act of the 
Father in attracting to the Son, the latter the production of Christ 
in the soul. 

Ver. 22—As another work, which the Father has committed to 
the Son, the Evangelist further speaks of the κρίσις (comp. ver. 27), 
which also, in its nature—like the resuscitation of the dead, whe- 
ther corporeal or spiritual—presupposes Divine properties. (The 
γάρ appears to refer to ov¢ θέλει ; that Jesus quickens whom he 
will [not all], is an exercise of jurisdiction, as described iii. 18.) 
The contradiction between this passage, and the words ii. 17, οὐκ 
ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὺς τὸν υἱὸν iva κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, 15. merely apparent. 
(Compare the interpretation of the passage.) or, in iii. 17, it is 
only denied that the primary purpose of sending Christ was judg- 
ment (κρίσις), while according to ver. 18, the consequence of that 
mission to those who did not believe was immediate judgment. As 
the idea of the resuscitation was left indefinite, so also is that of 
the κρίσις. The expression may designate the internal, spiritual, as 
well as the general judgment of the world. 

Ver, 23.—The design of this surrender by the Father of all his 
glory to the Son is, that all may pay the same honour to the Son 
as is due to the Father ; and the consequence is, that those who do 
not honour the Son, do not honour the Father, because he will be 
honoured only in the Son. The Father has, as it were, withdrawn: 
he will be acknowledged, loved, adored only in the Son. It is not 
till the end of the world that the Son will deliver up the kingdom 
to God and the Father (1 Cor, xv. 24). -Here the connexion with 
ver. 18 completely closes. The Jews censured Jesus because he 
made himself equal to God ; the Saviour, on the contrary, shews 
that God has constituted him equal with himself, and that he who 
does not acknowledge him in this exaltation, opposes the will of 
God himself, whom he pretends to honour. Now this passage in 
the mouth of him who was lowly in heart (Matth. xi. 29) is a 
stronger argument for the Divine nature of Christ than all those 
passages in ‘which he is called God. Honouring the Son as we honour 
the Father (τιμᾶν τὸν υἱὸν, ὡς τιμῶσι τὸν es can only refer to 
the honour of worship ; ας however, according to Exod. xx. 3, be- 
longs only to the true God, and may not be addressed to any but 
him. ‘To suppose an arbitrary transference of the honour of wor- 
ship to this or that person by God, is inconsistent with all worthy 
conceptions of him ; for God, according to his veracity, cannot will 
that this honour shall be paid to any one to whom it does not be- 
long. Hence it only remains that the Son, Light from Light, Life 
from Life, on account of his essential equality and oneness, may and 


Joun V. 24, 395 


must be adored as the Father. And he who knows the Son, and 
does not adore him, does not worship even the Father (the living 
God), but rather pays homage to the gods of his own understand- 
ing, or to idols still more perishable ; for the eternal light of the 
hidden Father has been manifested in no other than in the Son, 
who is the revealed God himself. Nay, he who knows not the Son, 
yet unconsciously worships him, so far as he possesses the true know- 
ledge of God or the presentiment of it ; for he beholds rays of that 
light which is displayed in the Son. 
Ver. 24——We must now resume the discussion of the awaken- 
ing of the dead, which in ver. 21 was merely touched upon. Up 
to this point the connexion was clear and simple. We might take 
ἀνάστασις, resurrection, like κρίσις, judgment, in the widest sense, 
spiritually as well as physically, since both were intended to be 
spoken of merely as works of God which the Father had delivered 
to the Son. But now the connexion seems to cease, and especially 
the idea of the resurrection appears so differently employed, that 
the interpretation is very difficult. The turn in the discourse is 
most simply explained by the impression which the previous words 
would necessarily produce upon the hearers. According to their 
low Jewish views of the Messiah, they were accustomed not to as- 
cribe the awakening of the dead to him, but to refer it to God. 
The discourse of Christ must therefore have produced astonishment, 
which was doubtless vividly pourtrayed in their countenances. On 
this account Jesus recurs to the sentiment of ver. 21, and enlarges 
upon it, shewing that, according to the more profound view, that of 
the Old Testament itself when rightly understood, everything, and 
in particular the awakening of the dead, is delivered by the Father 
to the Son, in that he, like the Father, contains life independently 
in himself (ver. 26), and therefore is able to impart life to the dead. 
The ancient opinions, that the awakening of the dead is to be 
taken either merely in the physical sense (as is thought by sev- 
eral of the Fathers, and among the more modern theologians by 
Storr, Schott, Kuinoel, etc.), or merely in the spiritual sense (as 
Eckermann, Ammon, etc., maintain), may alike be considered per- 
fectly obsolete ; Augustine, and in after times Luther, Calvin, 
Liicke, Thoiuck, acknowledge that the discourse embraces both. 
The last named scholars interpret ver. 28, 29, of the resurrection of 
the body ; while they refer the other verses to the spiritual awak- 
ening of the dead world. But even this view does not seem quite 
sufficient for the solution of the difficulties in our passage. It leaves 
the relation between ver. 24, and ver. 25 in particular, obscure ; be- 
cause it would necessarily imply that the same object is pursued in 


* Respecting the history of the exposition of this passage, compare the excellent 
Excursus 1. of Liicke in the 2d vol. of his Commentary. 


396 Joun V. 25. " 


both verses, which is inconsistent with such a difference in the modes 
of representation. 

It appears to me that Liicke makes the nearest approach to the 
correct exposition of this difficult passage. He refers to the Jewish 
doctrine of a double corporeal resurrection, which the New Testa- 
ment also recognizes and confirms (comp. my Comm. on Luke xiy. 
14), and he thinks that the Saviour here alludes to this. He adds, 
however, that the Lord cannot have admitted this Jewish view of a 
twofold resurrection in its literal sense, but that he apprehended it 
spiritually, and merely retained the form of expression, viz., that 
believers or the ;ious only would be raised first. Now this remark 
in reality conducts us back to the ancient opinion on the passage. 
But if a physical resurrection in general is to be admitted, it does 
not appear why this should not be regarded as proceeding at certain 
intervals, so that the truly pious, ὦ, 6. the regenerate, should be 
raised first, and then the rest. At all events, the strict province of 
exegesis is no more than to bring out the ideas contained in the text, 
simply according to the meaning of the author; and, in pursuing 
this object, we are led by the progression in our passage to this re- 
sult, viz., that the Saviour advancing from the purely spiritual re- 
suscitation of men, passes on to the resurrection of the just, and 
thence to the universal awakening of the dead. Accordingly the 
simple meaning of the words that follow is this: “Truly I say unto 
you, the Son of God is in every sense the reanimator of the dead ; 
he is the author of their spiritual awakening, as well as of the cor- 
poreal resurrection, first of the saints, and then of all mankind.” 
It is evident that the only meaning of “hearing the word” (Adyov 
ἀκούειν), ver 24, is to receive the preaching of Christ ; this, as of 
Divine origin, as the influx of life, produces eternal life, and relieves 
man of the judgment, for he receives the judicial, separative ele- 
ment in the light itself. (Comp. the remarks on ui. 15, 17, 18.) 
The condition of merely natural life is that of death, the absence 
of Divine life ; the regenerated man is transferred from this spirit- 
ual death to true life. ternal life is not to be regarded merely as 
something beyond the grave; in him who is awakened out of the 
death of the natural man, it begins already, so that heaven appears 
brought down to earth, to the hearts of believers. True, however, 
the element of life, working from within, must gradually penetrate 
the whole man, including also his corporeal nature. 

Ver. 25.—As in the individual the quickening process advances 
by degrees from within outwardly, so in the mass. Some of the 
dead rise first, and at last ail that rest in the grave (ver. 28.) 
The former are those who in this life heard the word of God (ot 
ἀκούσαντες 80. τὸν λόγον, ver. 24), and allowed it to work effectually 
within them to their regeneration. They are prepared to recognize 


Joun V. 26, 27. τ 90} 


the call (φωνή) of the Son of God, and to be transformed Τί 
is evident that voice (φωνήν is essentially distinct from word (λόγος), 
and, as ver, 29 shews, is nothing else than the creative call of God, 
which vivifies what is dead, or the awakening summons (φωνὴ 
σάλπιγγος, 1 Cor. xv. 52); hence the passage cannot be understood 
as referring to spiritual resuscitation. The words ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ 
viv ἐστιν, an hour cometh and now is, also prohibit the latter ac- 
ceptation, for they could not be employed in relation to spiritual 
resuscitation, this being already and completely present.* This 
formula (ἔρχεται Spa καὶ viv ἐστιν) 15 adopted when some phenonie- 
non is spoken of which, although indeed future, may be regarded 
as present in thegerm. As with the kingdom of God, so with the 
resurrection. This, like the erection of the kingdom of God, is 
viewed as coincident with the manifestation of the Messiah, and 
although, like the latter, in its entirety delayed, yet in its analogies 
was present.f (δε. xxvii. 52, 53.) 

Ver. 26, 27.—Now the possibility of the accomplishment of such 
a work is founded on the fact, that the father has given life to the 
Son as an independent fountain of life, and with it judgment. 
(Comp. the remarks on John 1. 4, ili. 19.) In connexion with this, 
however, the final clause, “‘ because he is the Son of man” (ὅτι υἱὸς 
ἀνθρώπου ἐστί) is remarkable. It is evidently intended to furnish 
the reason why the judgment could be given to him, It is there- 
fore obvious that Son of Man cannot here be equivalent to man, to 
maintain which it would be necessary to connect the words with the 

* In opposition to this Liicke remarks (vol. ii. p. 44), that as yet the apostles them- 
selves had scarcely begun to rise out of the death of error, and thus it might well be 
said: “ the hour of spiritual awakening cometh.” But that the words οἱ νεκροὶ ἀκούσονται 
are to be understood as referring to the apostles, appears in the highest degree improba- 
ble. Meanwhile I allow that my interpretation of the passage may fail to carry conyic- 
tion, so long as it is doubted whether Christ admitted the Jewish distinction between a 
resuscitation of the righteous and the universal awakeniug of all the dead; but, on the 
other hand, it cannot be denied that if Christ acknowledged this doctrine, our view gains 
from the reference to the resurrection of the just,a strong hold, which it more or less 
wants when taken in any other way. 

+ Some of the Fathers, 6. g. Chrysostom, Cyril, etc., referred καὶ viv ἐστιν only to tha 
reanimation of Lazarus and similar cases, which is evidently too narrow a limitation of 
the words. [I cannot but think the Fathers right in their limitation. As the Saviour 
kad been called to account for healing a sick man, after vindicating his conduct by his 
relation to his Father, he says y. 20, 21, that they shall see yet greater deeds, and then de- 
clares that he even raises the dead, gives life to whom he will. V. 25 states still moro 
specifically that “an hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear his voice,” re- 
ferring to the repeated instances of his exemplifying the power claimed above; and 
finally, that they may not be stumbled at such deeds, he assures them at ver. 28 that these 
single acts of awakening are but slight displays of power to be manifested on a grander 
scale when “ ali that are in the graves shall hear his voice,” etc. Thus there is a regular 
and natural progression in the thought. According to this interpretation οἱ ἀκούσαντες, 
means those of the dead to whom the call was directed; this surely is less difficult than 


with Olshausen to understand λόγον, and apply the whole to a first resurrection, viz. 
of the righteous.—[K. 


398 Joun V. 28, 29. 


following verse, as several of the Fathers, and, among the moderns, 
Dr. Paulus, propose ; but this is utterly inadmissible. The sense 
itself, as well as the circumstance that the phrase (υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου) 
has not the article, are explained in the simplest manner by suppos- 
ing a reference to the passage Dan. vil. 13. There, in like manner, 
the article is wanting, and a Son of man appears before the throne 
of the Ancient, in order to be formally invested with all might and 
dominion. In allusion to this, it is now said, that because he is 
such a t:x 72, he is also the Judge, for everything is delivered into 
his hands.* (John iii, 35; Matth. xi, 27; xxviii. 18; 1 Cor. 
xv, 27.) 

Ver. 28, 29.—The less is now surpassed by the greater :—yea, 
even the universal resuscitation at the end of time is the work of 
the Son of God! That the Lord here refers to physical resurrec- 
tion, is shewn by the expression ‘‘in their graves” (ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις), 
as also by ‘come forth” (ἐκπορεύεσθαι), and by the remark that 
the wicked will rise as well as the good. Those who have done 
good are here, of course, righteous persons as described Matth. 
xxv. 84, ff., but distinguished from the ἀκούσαντες (ver. 25, those 
who are regenerated through the Logos). In like manner in the 
Apocalypse, the priests of God and of Christ who have part in 
the first resurrection (xx. 5, 6) are distinguished from the dead, who 
are judged according to their works, among whom are righteous and 
unrighteous (xx. 12). To the one class of those who are judged the 
resurrection is the true life, while to the other it is only a second 
death (θάνατος δεύτερος Rev. xx. 14), ἡ. 6. the entire loss of all higher 
life and being, and abandonment to perfect alienation from God. 
In the case of the latter, therefore, judgment (κρίσις) appears as 
absolute condemnation (κατάκρισις). This passage is further re- 
markable as the only one in the New Testament—besides Acts 
xxiv. 15, that speaks of the resurrection of both just and unjust 
(ἀνάστασις δικαίων τε καὶ adixwv)—containing an express mention of 
the resurrection of the wicked. 1 Cor. xv. the resurrection appears 
only as a favour bestowed upon believers, and Matth. xxv., Rev, xx., 
although the universal judgment of the world is the subject of dis- 
course, nothing is said respecting the bodily resurrection of the 
wicked. Still, in the passage Matth. x. 28, the corporeal resurrec- 
tion of the wicked is presupposed ; and in the Old Testament, 


* Upon acomparison of this passage with Heb. ii. 17, 18, it might seem that υἱὸς 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπον here designated the man in his humility and lowliness; so that the sense 
would be: ‘‘ Because he has humbled himself in lowliness, he is well qualified to be a 
merciful Judge.” In that case, it would be necessary to lay all the stress upon the ab- 
sence of the article, for ὁ υἱὸς τ. d, is never employed in reference to the humiliation. But, 
since the absence of the article is easily explained by the circumstance that υἱὸς τ. ἀ. 
possesses the nature of an adopted nomen proprium, it cannot be disputed that it is 
most suitable to retain the ordinary meaning of the expression. 


Joun V. 30-32. 399 


Dan. xii. 2, the doctrine that the ungodly will rise again is most 
distinctly taught. 

Ver. 30.—The Redeemer in conclusion describes his judgment as 
unalterable, because it is just. The Father himself judges in the 
Son. The words οὐ δύναμαι ἐγώ κ. τ. λ., I can do, etc., proceed from 
the general relation of the Son (comp. the remarks on ver, 19), and 
upon this is founded the special relation of the judgment. The 
judgment of the Son cannot but be righteous, because it emanates 
from God, the absolute righteousness (δικαιοσύνη), (comp. vill. 16), 
and in the Son it is not a detached will of his own (θέλημα ἐμόν), 
but simply. the will of the Father. (The interpretation, “1 judye 
concerning my contemporaries according to that which I have 
[through men] lcarned respecting them,” would reduce all the depth 
of meaning in this passage to utter superficiality, and sufficiently 
refutes itself.) 

Ver. 31, 82.—These declarations of Jesus, regarding his sublime 
office, very naturally lead him to speak of the witnesses thereto. 
Doubiless he read in the astonished looks of his hearers the ques- 
tion : ‘‘ How dost thou prove this ?” Now, it is remarkable that 
the Redeemer here appears to say the very contrary to that which 
he utters in another passage (vill. 14) in reply to a similar query. 
There he says that his witness concerning himself is true ; here, 
that it is not true. It has, however, already frequently been re- 
marked that this difference is solved in a simple manner thus: 
Christ in this passage places himself in the human point of view 
which belonged to his auditors, to whom a testimony from himself 
in his own cause could be of no value, because everywhere in the 
world the possibility of imposture or deceit must be presupposed. 
But in the passage viii. 14, the Lord speaks concerning his Divine 
dignity, the truth of which nothing can more strongly confirm 
than his own word, this being one with the Divine word itself. 
Here (ver. 82), Jesus speaks of the Divine testimony to him as that 
of another. Some, e. g. Chrysostom and Grotius, have understood 
by ἄλλος, another, not God, but John the Baptist ; a view suffi- 
ciently refuted by the sequel (ver. 37, 38). Here, however, arises 
the difficult question—how many testimonies are to be distinguished 
in the words that follow? That of the Baptist (ver. 33-35) and 
that of Holy Scripture (ver. 39) stand clearly out ; but whether, 
ver. 86, the testimony through the works (ἔργα) is to be dis- 
criminated from the testimony of God, it is difficult to say. The 
distinciion depends upon the acceptation of vers. 36, 87, where we 
ehall recur to this question ; here I only remark, in passing, that I 
believe the two witnesses must be united—that of the works, and, 
so to speak, the personal testimony of God. But ver. 32 may be so 
taken as to comprehend all the subsequent forms of testimony, for 


400 JoHN V. 33-36. 


the Baptist and the Sacred Scriptures are in reality the testimonies 
of God to Jesus. 

Ver. 33, 34.—The Saviour, in the first place, reminds his hearers 
that they had already received a witness on his behalf in John, 
whom they honoured as a prophet ; and hence that they had suffi- 
cient grounds for believing him. Yet Jesus expressly remarks, that 
he does not need a human recommendation ; he appeals to such evi- 
dence only to assist them in believing, and thus to promote their 
salvation (ταῦτα λέγω, iva ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε). (The truth which the Bap- . 
tist attested, is, that Jesus is the Messiah.) This declaration is 
somewhat extraordinary ; it would seem that Christ here disparaged 
the testimony of the Baptist, which nevertheless was appointed for 
him by God himself, and on which such great stress was laid, John 
i, 19, ff. Liicke endeavours to solve the difficulty by taking λαμβάνω 
here actively, as meaning ‘‘ to seek, to strive after.” But this does 
not remove the strange appearance of the statement, “I desire no 
human witness,” since Jesus himself, ver. 35, ascribes importance to 
the testimony of the Baptist. The declaration is doubtless rather 
to be taken thus: “1 do not receive the testimony from a man ; 
but the testimony of the Baptist was not a human testimony ; God 
testified through him.”* To any one who regarded it merely as a 
human attestation, it was of no value. 

Ver, 35.—Hence the following words, while they represent John 
as subordinate to Jesus, who was the light, still point him out as 
filled with Divine energy, by means of which he aroused hearts and 
consciences (καιόμενος), and illuminated the understanding (φαίνων). 
Comp. as parallel Sirach xlviii. 1. The Jews had indeed acknowl- 
edged the prophetic endowments of the Baptist, but had not made 
use of them ; instead of being led by his sternness. to genuine con- 
trition, and going as penitents to Christ, they amused themselves 
like children in his light for awhile, and then forsook him. The Re- 
deemer characterizes the conduct of the Jews in a similar manner, 
Matth. xi. 16, ff. (Ἐθέλειν indicates the inclination of the Jews 
for such trifling pleasures. Comp. ver. 40, It is, as Liicke justly 
remarks, neither adverbial nor pleonastic.—IIpd¢ ὥραν, comp. Gal. ii. 
oy ehilem.-ver. 15.) 

Ver. 836.—Upon John’s testimony, follows the mention of the 
works (ἔργα) of Christ. By ‘“ works,”+ as here used, some have 
understood the course of action which Jesus pursued, or his Mes- 
slanic ministry in general ; some his doctrine or his miracles alone ; 

* Js it not rather to be thus taken? “ Properly speaking, and as infinitely superior, I 
cannot accept the testimony of a man; but for your sakes (that ye may be saved), I 
waive my prerogative, and refer you to the testimony of John,” His appeal, however, 
to John is but incidental, the ἄλλος͵ other, to whom he referred, was the Father.—[K. 


+ There are but few instances besides those in John, where the expression occurs 
with this significance, as Matth. xi. 2; Heb. iii. 9; Ps. evii. 24; in the Hebrew τῶ» Ὁ. 


Joun V. 37, 38. 401 


and others the latter in connexion with his Messianic ministry. 
That the term does not indicate either the doctrine* or the 
Messianic ministry of Jesus without his miracles is so clear, and 
now so acknowledged, that it needs no further proof. Stili the 
question remains, whether we are to understand the miracles of 
Christ alone, or in connexion with his ministry generally. Liicke, 
with whom Tholuck accords, decidedly maintains the latter opinion. 
I think with Storr, Flatt, and Kuinoel, that ἔργα = σημεῖα indicates 
only the miracles of Jesus. Liicke is led to the adoption of the 
other view by the comparison of John xvii. 4, τὸ ἔργον ἐτελείωσα, I 
have accomplished the work. This passage does indeed appear par- 
allel, since the very expression ‘‘ accomplish them” (τελειώσω αὐτάν 
occurs in ours ; but a closer consideration of it tends to shew the 
contrary. The singular, with the article John xvii. 4, leaves no 
choice ; there the work of Jesus is not to be understood as designat- 
ing his miracles collectively, but, on the contrary, his entire Mes- 
sianic vocation, with all its individual manifestations. But where 
the expression occurs in the plural, this signification is by no means 
so suited to the context as that which restricts it to the miracles. 
In addition to the present passage, John x. 25, 32, 38, xiv. 11, ff. 
decidedly favour this view. In these verses the works are always. 
employed as proofs of the Divine mission of Christ, just as the 
. σημεῖα, signs, 111. 2. Miracles, however, are the only manifestations 
of the Messianic ministry of Jesus which could prove his mission to 
be Divine, and consequently these alone can be meant. The entire 
Messianic work of Jesus could not form a proof, for the very reason 
that it was not yet completed, and could not be surveyed. Liicke, in- 
deed, thinks that τελειώσω, accomplish, cannot be said of miracles, 
because they are completed immediately as they take place. But 
this expression does not refer to the completion of the individual 
miracle ; it rather relates to the entire sum of his miracles then 
present to the mind of Christ. Accordingly, this comprehensive 
term is resolved into its particulars by the words the very works 
which I do (αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶν which follow ; and this supple- 
mentary clause is quite incompatible with the interpretation of 
Liicke. The miracles of Jesus, can, in their nature alone, be ad- 
duced as proofs of Christ’s efficacy. 

Ver. 37, 38.—These verses appear to contain merely a more defi- 
nite explanation of ver. 36, as Liicke thinks, and as it seemed tc 
me probable at a still earlier period, But the perfect μεμαρτύρηιι͵ 
has testified, with the subsequent ἀκηκόατε, ye have heard, and 
ἑωράκατε, have seen, as also the emphatic himself (αὐτός), and the cir- 
cumstance that form and voice (eido¢ and φωνή) are not suited to ἔργα, 


* In the passage xiy. 10 this is very apparent. Compare, however, the exposition 
in loco. 


Vou. IL.—26 


402 Joun V, 87, 38. 


works, indicate, with more than probability, an advance to some- 
thing new. We are not indeed to suppose an allusion either to 
the fact of the baptism or to the prophets and their testimony, but a 
reference to the immediate operation of the Spirit of God in the 
souls of men (comp. vi. 45); the Lord represents this as constitu- 
ting spiritual theophania, which, however, presupposes susceptibility, 
“being in the truth,” in order to be perceived. They might have 
seen the form of God, and might have heard his voice, but they had 
been prevented by their sins, which had blunted their powers of 
perception. Jesus, in exhibiting the proof of this want of suscep- 
tibility in his contemporaries, refers to the various modes in which 
God is revealed ; he manifests himself as in nature and in history, 
so also in the soul. But those Jews had nowhere acknowledged 
him. Of course we are not to understand literal theophania, for 
these the Jews could not have seen ; but the form of the expres- 
sion.is borrowed from these. Voice and form, as modes of Divine 
revelation which the ear and eye of the opened mind can perceive, 
correspond with “hearing” and “ seeing,” whereby Jesus designates 
his own perceptions of the operations of the Father. To under- 
stand the passage as stating the spirituality of God, is, as may 
easily be seen, quite a mistake ; for the Lord does not deny, but as- 
serts the voice and form of God ; but merely declares that the Jews 
have not acknowledged them. 

As regards the words καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν, 
and ye have not his word abiding in you, I cannot with Liicke refer 
it to the word of Scripture, but only to the inward revelation of God 
in the conscience. (Comp. 1 John, i. 10.) According to John’s idea 
there is in every mind an utterance of the word of the eternal God 
which responds to every kindred element without. Sin has indeed 
diminished man’s susceptibility of its awakening power, but still it 
displays itself as ever efficacious. This word abiding within us 
(λόγον ἔχειν μένοντα), however, according to our passage, precedes 
faith, and is essential to it. It is equivalent to being “of the 
truth,” or to the law of God within men. (Rom. i. 18, 19, ii. 14, 
15.) Without something analogous in the mind, man cannot per- 
ceive the things of God. It is the same as that which Jesus, in the 
synoptical Gospels (Matth. vi. 23), calls “the light in thee.” This 
assumption involves no denial of sinfulness, although it certainly 
does deny the entire extinction of all power to perceive that which 
is Divine. (The idea of μένειν, εἶναι ἐν τινί, abiding, being in, in 
John, is profoundly spiritual ; he understands by it essential in- 
dwelling and in-being. In particular, the Divine nature is conceived 
of as actually imparting itself to men through love [ver. 42] as self- 
communication, Comp. Rom.x. 8.) Some mistakes might arise in 
regard to the correctness of this interpretation of vers, 37, 88, from 


JoHN YV. 39-47. 403 


the comparison of i, 18 and vi. 46, where it is said that no one ex- 
cept the Son can see God. But even in these passages the reference 
is not to an immediate contemplation of God, apart from the inter- 
vention of the Son; on the contrary, the meaning, when divested 
of the metaphorical allusion to theophania, is no other than that 
expressed Matth. xi. 27, ‘‘ No one knoweth the Father except the 
Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.” Christ was willing 
to reveal the Father, but the unbelieving Jews closed their eyes 
against the entering light. 

Ver. 89, 40.—As a proof of the complete blindness and deadness 
of the Jews, Jesus adduces the fact that they perpetually search the 
Scripture and think to possess eternal life therein, without yet per- 
ceiving that Scripture itself testifies of Christ. But («aé is to be 
taken as adversative) they wild not come to Christ; the impurity 
of their disposition forms the foundation of their incapacity for the 
knowledge of God and of his messengers. Thus viewed, the passage 
takes its place in the connexion with less ambiguity than if ἐρευνᾶτε 
be understood as an imperative. True, the absence of ὑμεῖς appears 
to favour the imperative acceptation, while Liicke adduces John vi. 
24, xiv. 28; 1 Thess. 11. 9, as instances in which ὑμεῖς is omitted 
before the imperative. 

Ver. 41-44.—As the ground of this unwillingness (οὐ θέλετε 
ἐλθεῖν, ver, 49), the Lord now mentions their love of self, and the 
deficiency of love to God connected therewith. (The words οὐκ 
ἔχειν ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἑαυτῷ are evidently to be taken like λόγον 
ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ver. 88 ; viz., not as referring to the determination of 
the will, but to that higher element of life which God imparts to 
man ; for no one can love God unless God has first loved him, 7. e., 
has communicated himself to him, 1 John iv. 10.) The love of God 
rebukes all sin and self-complacency, but the sin that is in men flat- 
ters them ; hence man seeks the perishable honour (δόξα) of men 
which pleases the flesh, rather than eternal honour with God. On 
this account the Jews welcomed false Christs and prophets, but 
nailed the true Saviour to the cross. (Comp. the Comm. on 
Matth. xxiv. 4,5. Liicke on the passage remarks, according to 
Bengel, that the Jews count no less than sixty-four false Messiahs 
after Christ.) 

Ver. 45-47.—Jesus now addresses the last reproof to his hearers, 
by laying before them his relation to Moses, as the representative 
of the law. The legality of the Pharisaic Jews led them to believe 
that they had in Moses an intercessor with God ; if they saw in 
Christ something Divine or pleasing to God, on the other hand he 
appeared to them as their opponent because he reproved their sins. 
This view proceeded from totally false and distorted conceptions. 
The gentle Son of man, full of grace and truth (i. 17), brought for- 


404 Joun VI. 1-13. 


giveness, although indeed only to the penitent and believing ; "δ 
Moses, on the contrary, with his law formed the accusing element 
against the disobedient. To this latter class the Jews plainly 
shewed that they belonged, for not to mention gross transgressions 
of law, they did not observe the command of Moses to honour the 
promised Prophet. (Deut. xviii. 18.) The Lord may have alluded 
especially to this passage ; but he also regarded all the other pre- 
dictions in the Mosaic writings (which he thus recognized in the 
Pentateuch, comp. Luke xxiv. 27), in connexion with the typically 
symbolic character of the law, as means calculated to awaken his 
contemporaries, and draw them speedily to himself But they 
rather accumulated to themselves teachers according as their ears 
itched for them (2 Tim. iv. 3), instead of receiving the wholesome 
doctrine of the Son of God. The concluding words (ver. 47) are re- 
markable, in that the words of Christ appear far more efficacious than 
the writings of the Old Testament. But their devotion to the au- 
thority of “Holy Seripture tended to assist their perception of the 
truth that it contained, whilst they were full of prejudice against 
the Lord. 


§ 10, Tue Frepine or tHe Five THousanp—JEsus WALKING 
ON THE SEA—DISCOURSES ON PARTAKING HIS FLESH 
AND BLoop. 


(John vi. 1-71.) 


Ver. 1-18.—With respect to the fact of this feeding itself, we 
have already said what is necessary in the Comm. on Matth. xiv. 13, 
ff. compared with xv. 32, ff. The fact itself, like the walking of 
Jesus on the sea, is here only of secondary importance ; both merely 
serve as bases to the following weighty discourses of Jesus, which 
were important to the Evangelist’s immediate design. or it is ev- 
ident that the account of the feeding is intended by John to stand 
in close connexion with the following discourse on eating and drink- 
ing of his flesh and blood ; hence it may furnish an illustration of 
the doctrine of the Holy Supper. In particular, the εὐχαριστία, giv- 
ing of thanks, of Christ, which vi. 11 appears as the efficient point 
in the feeding of the five thousand, is to be understood similarly 
also in connexion with the Supper. On the μετὰ ταῦτα, ver. 1, com- 
pared with ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα, ver. 4, we have already spoken, v. 1. 

* De Wette’s view of this passage, which makes Jesus merely say, ‘‘that he would 
not accuse them, this not being necessary, since Moses did it,” is erroneous. As if Moses 
here did something which it was the true province of Christ todo! The judicial func- 


tion of the Redeemer, on the contrary, here entirely withdraws, and the sense of our pas- 
sage is equivalent to the words, “I judye no one.” 


Joun VI. 14-26. 405 


The Feast there mentioned was probably that of Purim, which was 
only about a month distant from the Passover. If a Passover 
were to be understood there also, then either no account would be 
given of a whole year, or else if would be necessary, as Dr. Paulus 
proposes, to take ἐγγύς in the sense of ‘‘ just after,” “shortly there- 
upon.” This, however, as we have observed in our remarks on v. 1, 
is utterly incongruous, since the term, when employed in reference 
to time, constantly means, “ nearly approaching,”* and, hence the 
opinion that the Feast mentioned v. 1 was a Passover, failed to 
commend itself to us. 

Ver. 14, 15.—John relates more expressly than the synoptical 
Evangelists, that the assembled multitude, astonished at the amaz- 
ing miracle, endeavoured to claim Jesus on the side of their political 
views concerning the Messiah. This induced him to return alone to 
the mountain (ver. 3) where he had previously been with his disci- 
ples. (‘O προφήτης here stands, κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, for the Messiah, accord- 
ing to Deut. xviii. 18, in the signification: ‘‘ The One known great 
Prophet promised by Moses.”) 

Ver. 16-24.—The event immediately subsequent, the walking of 
Jesus on the sea, has also been considered, Matth. xiv. 22, ff Our 
Evangelist only speaks more particularly regarding the conduct of 
the people after the Lord had withdrawn (ver, 22-24). The crowd, 
he says, had observed that, when the disciples went away in the 
evening, Jesus remained behind, and that no other ship was there 
besides that in which they embarked. (For the sake of pointing 
out the one ship more exactly, some codices have, in ver. 22, the 
additional clause : ἐκεῖνο, εἰς ὃ ἐνέβησαν of μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, which, how- 
ever, plainly betrays itself as a mere interpretation.) They there- 
fore conjectured that the Lord must have chosen the route by land, 
and in vessels which had arrived in the meantime, they hastened 
over the sea that they might be before him. (Since it had been 
previously said that there was no other ship there, it was needful to 
add the supplementary remark, ver. 23, that others had come from 
Tiberias. This, however, forms a parenthesis, for ὅτε εἶδεν, ver, 24, 
resumes the thread of the discourse [ἰδών, ver. 22]. The reading 
εἶδον or εἶδεν for ἰδών has arisen from a misunderstanding of the 
parenthetical sentence.) 

Ver. 25-26.—Surprised to find Jesus already on the other side 
of the sea, they ask: πότε ὧδε γέγονας ; when camest thou hither ? 
the when (πότε) is here evidently intended to involve the how (πῶς) 
as they thought to deduce the mode in which he had come from the 
time of his arrival. The Redeemer enters into no particulars about 
external matters, but conducts them at once to the knowledge of 


* Comp. only John xi. 55, where the same words occur: ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα τῶν 
Ἰουδαίων. 


406 Joun VI. 27, 28. 


their own hearts, and the motives which induced them ‘to follow 
him. Tholuck here remarks, that to request the miracles merely 
from the selfish desire to gratify the eye, would have argued gross 
and sensual views, but, to ask them for the satisfaction of animal ap- 
petite, was still more censurable. He appears, therefore, to have 
taken the words ὅτι ἐφάγετε ἐκ τῶν ἄρτων Kat ἐχορτάσθητε, because ye 
ate of the loaves and were satisfied, as referring merely to physical 
satisfaction, as, indeed, their primary signification would indicate. 
But it is difficult to conceive how Christ could have been induced 
to address such a spiritual discourse to men so grossly sensual. For, 
granting that the Redeemer, in his discourses, frequently went be- 
yond his hearers’ capacity of apprehension, because his words were 
also intended for after ages (John xiv. 26), still it must be admitted 
that Jesus did not act with utter disregard of circumstances, and 
address the profoundest truths to the very persons who had least 
ability to understand them. The concluding observations, vi. 60- 
71, in relation to the hearers of the discourse, appear again entirely 
unadapted to such a character in the majority, and such childlike 
expressions as ver, 34, κύριε, πάντοτε δὸς ἡμῖν τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον, Lord 
always give us, etc., also seem to indicate a different bent of mind. 
It might, indeed, be said that a distinction must be drawn between 
the grossly sensual men, and the disciples (ver. 60, ff.), and that the 
profound discourses were strictly intended for the latter. But vers, 
27, ff. shew the contrary. Here, at the very beginning of the dis- 
course, the sentiments peculiar to it are addressed to the persons 
who appear described, ver. 26, in such strong language. The words 
then, are doubtless best understood in the same way as the expres- 
sions of the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well. Although her atten- 
tion was primarily directed to the well-water in the external sense, 
she was not a woman of ordinary character, but was susceptible of 
the highest truths ; so these men, although they certainly rejoiced 
in the bestowment of the bread, yet did not so from vulgar sensual- 
ity, but partly from that poverty which excited pity, and partly 
from the mere desire of excitement. The Lord, therefore, could 
venture such profound revelations in their hearing, since he might 
hope, by disclosing the truth, to awaken within them the slumber- 
ing germ of higher principles ; or if they remained immovable, and 
became contentious, he would necessarily wish them to withdraw. 

Ver, 27, 28.—Jesus here introduces the discourse just in the 
same way as he began the conversation with the woman of Samaria, 
From material bread he proceeds to speak of spiritual, and here des- 
ignates himself the Bread of life (ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς), as he there called 
himself the water of life. The expression, ‘‘food enduring unto 
everlasting life” (βρῶσις μένουσα εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον), also intimates the 
effect of spiritual nutriment, 


Joun VI. 29-31. 407 


The food itself is of course intended to minister enjoyment, but 
as heavenly food, it imparts its nature to him who partakes it, 
whilst, on the contrary, the system changes physical nutriment into 
its own nature. Now the Son of Man dispenses this food, but man 
must seek it from him, (Ἐργάζεσθαι corresponds with the foregoing 
ζητεῖν, It is here employed in the sense “ to obtain by labour,” ὁ. e., 
“to acquire,” “to procure.” Thus $23 is used in Hebrew, 6. g., 
Prov. xxi. 6, "pe stvba ninss b2b, 7. 6.) one who acquires treasures 
with a lying tongue. The LXX. it is true, have here translated it 
by ἐνεργεῖν, but Theodotion has ἐργάζεσθαι. ἹΤοιεῖν is similarly em- 
ployed. Comp. Matth. xxv. 16.) The Father (by the signs which 
he performs through the Son, chap. v. 36), has sealed him,* as the 
dispenser of this heavenly vital energy. (On odpayigw, comp. the 
remarks at iii. 83.)} The answer of the Jews to these words of 
Christ plainly indicates a certain spiritual understanding ; it is not 
indeed altogether appropriate, but still it is not entirely beside the 
mark, Agreeably to their legal point of view, they refer the meat 
(βρῶσις) to such works of the law as God requires (ἔργα τ. 0.), and 
from Christ they only desire instruction as to the right legal works. 
Liicke here observes that this answer may have been given by the 
more cultivated among the assembly, and it certainly is probable 
that they led the conversation ; but even the most wncultivated 
might have answered thus, if only susceptible of the higher element. 

Ver, 29-31.—F rom the many works to which the Jews, in ac- 
cordance with their legal bias, referred, Jesus points them to the 
one thing needful, whereby alone all the works of man are truly con- 
secrated, viz., faith in the Son of God. With a fine allusion to the 
ἔργα he terms it a work of God (ἔργον τ. 0.), faith being not only 
pleasing to God, but also wrought by his grace, and thus a work of 
God in the soul of man. To this work the Jews did not attain, 
through their inward restlessness, and their efforts to perform works 
of many kinds. Even now when this invitation was addressed to 
them, instead of manifesting a docile mind, and making room in 
their hearts for the power of Jesus, they first require signs. Dr. 
Paulus makes use of these words to shew that they cannot have re- 
garded the previous entertainment as a miracle. But in that case 
the subsequent mention of manna, ver. 31, is inexplicable, for this 
necessarily has direct reference to the miracle of the feeding. We 
must therefore suppose the circumstance to have been as follows : 
The assembly here surrounding Jesus, consisted partly of those who 
had been spectators at the feeding, and partly of others who had 


* Here (ver. 27) πατήρ is used in connexion with ὑ. τ. ἀνθρώπου, a circumstance that 
seldom occurs. Comp. the remarks in the Comm. on Mark xiii. 32. 

+ The view of Hilary is quite erroneous. He refers the σφραγίζειν͵ sealing, not to the 
“ works,” but to the Son’s essential equality with the Father, as if he were an impression 
(χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως Heb. i. 3) of the Father. 


408 Joun VI. 32; 33. 


only heard it related ; some of the latter placed no confidence in the 
account, and wishing to see something of the kind with their own 
eyes, endeavoured, by mentioning the manna, to induce Jesus to 
repeat the miracle. ‘‘ Ye were satisfied,” ver. 26, distinctly points 
to the same persons as were present before. They also now plainly 
intimate to the Redeemer what kind of miracle they mean, viz., a 
truly splendid one (ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, Matth. xvi. 1) like that of Moses 
with the manna. This appears to involve a depreciation of what 
Jesus had done in feeding with ordinary bread ; so that we get the 
sense, ‘‘ Behold Moses performed still greater miracles, he gave us 
bread from heaven!” Such a miracle the Jews probably thought 
they might expect from the Messiah, because they regarded Moses 
as a type of the Messiah, even in relation to his miracles.* The 
citation is from Ps. Ixxviii. 24, where, however, the LX X. read ἄρτον 
οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς. (Comp, Rev. 11. 17.) 

Ver. 32, 33.—Withthis manna which nourishes the body, Christ 
now contrasts his nutriment for the soul. The Redeemer by no 
means denies that the manna came from heaven ; he only says that 
it was not the ἄρτος ἀ λ ηθιεν ὃς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, true bread from heaven 
(respecting ἀληθινός comp. the remarks on John 1. 9), ἡ. e., it could 
not be so termed in the strict and highest sense, because it served 
for physical purposes, and therefore, even though prepared by God 
in a miraculous way, could not have been dened from the spiritual 
world. 

With respect to the manna still found in Arabia, and its relation 
to the miraculous manna of Holy Scripture, comp. Von Raumer’s 
remarks, in his Zug der Israeliten durch die Wiiste (Leipzig, 
1834), p. 27, ff. 

Christ designates himself the καταβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, descend- 
ang from Footer as the true bread. Liicke justly defines the 
difference retameen καταβαίνων and καταβάς (ver. 41); the latter 
indicates the fact, the former rather the quality. But I cannot 
agree with Liicke in understanding the words ὁ καταβαίνων éx τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ καὶ ζωὴν διδοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ, as an epithet of the bread. This 
would occasion an obvious tautology with what precedes. On the 
contrary, it is a predicate, or, inverting the sentence, a subject 
in this sense: ‘ He who comes from heaven, the dispenser of 
life to the world, is himself the bread of God.” That the bread 
of God comes from heaven is self-evident, since God dwells in 
heaven. Moreover, it is only thus that the language “I am the 
bread of life” (ver. 85) is suitable. The world is contemplated as 


* Lightfoot hor. hebr. p. 1019, quotes from Midras Coheleth f. 86, 4, this passage: 
redemptor prior (ἡ. 6. Moses) descendere fecit pro iis Manna, sie et redemptor posterior 
yen mse on, a. €., descendere faciet Manna sicut scriptum est Ps, lxxviii. 24 

ἰ The Hebrew ἐπι has bust 433, ὦ. 6.) corn of heaven. 


Joun VI. 34-38. 409 


carrying death within itself, and hence the incarnate Logos is the 
first who brings into it the true life (. 4). If the words had been 
intended to refer to bread, it would doubtless have been said, ὁ γὰρ 
ἄρτος Θεοῦ καταβαίνει &x τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. I cannot admit that if the par- 
ticiple had been used in application to Christ, the expression 6 κατα- 
βάς must have been employed, because the coming of Christ from 
heaven was not concluded once for all with the birth, but is a con- 
tinous act, on which account Christ was spoken of during his life on 
earth as being in heaven. Consequently, both participles may be 
used with respect to Christ, according as his descent is represented 
as finished, or as continuous. Meyer justly takes the same view. 

Ver. 34, 85.—Like the Samaritan woman (iv. 15), the assembly 
of Jews cried out πάντοτε δὸς ἡμῖν τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον, evermore give 
us this bread, and thus we see that these men entertained a certain 
desire after heavenly things. Hereupon the Redeemer expressly 
represents himself to them as the bread of life, and as appeasing 
all hunger. 

Here the remark applies which we made in commenting on iv. 
14, viz., it is not the Lord’s doctrine that imparts satisfaction, and 
allays desire (this may be possessed in the memory without assuag- 
ing the longings of the heart) ; but it is his Sprit, which necessa- 
rily teaches the right doctrine. He communicates his spiritual life 
and essence itself to his own, and therefore makes them like him- 
self, first spiritually, then corporeally (Rom. viii. 11), Respecting 
ἔρχεσθαι —= πιστεύειν, consult the remarks on John iii, 20, 21, com- 
pared with ver. 18, and also John vi. 36, compared with ver. 87. 

Ver. 36-388.—This true faith was the very thing that was not 
yielded to the Redeemer (ver. 26). They regarded Jesus as the 
Messiah (ver. 14, 15), and yet they had not faith, because they did 
not receive the Divine power that issued from Christ, and allow it 
to operate effectually within them. This was the more censurable, 
as they enjoyed his immediate ministry. (In ὅτι κ αὶ ἑωράκατέ με, the 
καὶ is to be taken in the signification of etiamsi.) Yet the Lord, as 
if consoling himself, limits the general expression “ ye believe not” 
(οὐ πιστεύετε) 80 as to except some from the statement, just as he 
did 1. 11, 12. (In πᾶν 6 the absolute is employed for the concrete ; 
Christ views those who come to him as one organic whole.) All 
whom the Father giveth to him certainly willeome to him. Acdévaz, 
give (x. 29, xvii. 6, 9, 12, 24), evidently traces faith itself to a Di- 
vine influence, which is designated, ver. 44, as drawing (ἐλκύεινν). 
Faith, therefore, is God’s work in believers (Phil. ii. 18) ; but it by 
no means follows that the unbelief of unbelievers is also found in 
(zod’s decree. or it is the sad prerogative of the creature that he 
can sin, and by sin can render himself unsusceptible of God’s gra- 
cious attractions, But every heart that yields to these attractions 


410 Joun VI. 39-42. 


of the Father is met by the Son with overflowing kindness. (Ov μὴ 
ἐκβάλω ἔξω is to be taken as a litotes, “1 not only do not cast him 
out, but I embrace him with all the energy of love ;” for the opera- 
tions of the Father and of the Son do not oppose each other, but 
work harmoniously together.) (The formula ἐκβάλλειν ἔξω indicates 
a separate and limited spiritual community which the Redeemer 
came to establish. Comp. Matth. xxv. 10.) 

Ver. 39, 40.—As the sublime will of the Father, which was to 
be carried into effect in the mission of the Son, it is now specified 
that he, the source of life, should impart life to the dead. (Comp. 
i. 4, 1. 15, 16.) As the point of consummation, however, in the 
quickening (ζωοποιεῖσθαι), the resurrection at the last day (ἀνάστασις 
ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ), is immediately mentioned, which presupposes 
the awakening of the spirit and the quickening of the soul. The 
natural import of the phrase “last day” (ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα) restricts this 
necessarily to the bodily resurrection. (Comp. the Comm. on Matth. 
xxiv. 3.) Every application of the expression to the merely spiritual 
ministry of Christ would make it a mere repetition of the “ eternal 
life.” If, however, it be referred to the quickening of the body 
(ζωοποίησις τοῦ σώματος), we then have in these words a significant 
hint at what was brought out in the subsequent course of the con- 
versation. In the interview with the woman of Samaria, Jesus did 
not proceed beyond the representation of himself as spiritual, living 
water, which refreshes and sustains the soul ; here he already inti- 
mates that he will go further, and describe himself as the restorer 
and transformer of the entive man, even of the body. Thus the 
conversation has an internal progress—the Redeemer penetrates 
more and more deeply into the sublime idea of the quickening of 
the world, and as its consummation, he sets forth the glorification 
even of that which is corporeal. Hand in hand with this advance, 
proceeds the disclosure of the gifts that he bestows ; he gives not 
merely his spirit but his life (ψυχή) itself, and even his flesh. (The 
construction of πᾶν with the following ἐξ αὐτοῦ is a known hebraism, 
Comp. Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 723, ff. on the use of the nominative 
absolute. Liicke, it is true, justly remarks, that kindred construc- 
tions occur even in the writings of profane Greek authors. [Comp. 
Viger, Hermann’s edition, Ὁ. 54, note, where 6. g., the passage : ἡ 
δὲ δεξι ἃ, ὀρθοὶ τῆς χειρὸς ἐκείν ης οἱ δάκτυλοι is adduced from Phi- 
lostrat. vita Apoll. Tyan. iv. 28.] But this simply shews the admis- 
sibility of the expression, whilst in the Hebrew it is the ordinary 
construction.—The reading πατρός, ver. 89, is to be regarded as a 
mere gloss to πέμψαντος.) 

Ver. 41, 42.—The Jews, entangled in their customary views of 
the Messiah, which regarded him merely as a man κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν, 
make objections because Jesus ascribes to himself a direct heavenly 


Joun VI. 43, 44. 411 


origin. Liicke thinks that, according to vii. 27, they had assumed 
the Messiah’s origin to be unknown (after the analogy of Heb. vii. 
8); and thinking that they knew the father and mother of Jesus 
(according to the prevailing opinion, Joseph was his father), they 
had concluded that he was not the Messiah. But this evidently 
disagrees with vi. 14, 15, where it is said that they wished to make 
him king. It was not the Messiahship of Jesus that gave offence 
to these ; it was the circumstance that he ascribed to himself as 
Messiah, a purely heavenly origin. (Comp. Matth. x. 32, ff) 

Ver. 43, 44.—This fresh proof of their unbelief induces Jesus 
once more to refer (ver. 37) to the circumstance that faith is a 
gracious gift of God. The Redeemer does not propose to operate 
upon the minds of men by external facts, historically (so to speak) 
—e, g., by the information that he is not the son of Joseph, but be- 
gotten by the Holy Spirit; on the contrary, his operations are 
purely internal and spiritual, effected by the indwelling power of 
truth. He continually pours the rays of his heavenly light into the 
darkness of the heart, assured that it is effectual where the Father’s 
gracious attractions are revealed. Where this has not yet come to 
pass, no purpose orresolution can effect it (οὐδεὶς δύ vat ae ἐλθεῖν).- 
the hour of gracious attraction is to be awaited. Here, however, this 
attracting (ἑλκύειν) needs a closer consideration. (The-expression is 
selected in accordance with the Old Testament form 5%, which is em- 
ployed in the same signification, Jer. xxxi. 8, Song of Solomon i. 4. 
The LXX. translate it in both instances by ἑλκύειν.) For since the 
work of the Son is also Divine, there here appears a twofold Divine 
agency—that of the Father and that of the Son. The question is, 
how these are related.* Although, in the Father’s attracting to the 
Son, even external circumstances favourable to the development of 
spiritual life may be taken into account, still its essence always con- 
sists in internal incitement by the Spirit. But if the Father draws 
to the Son, and the Son again leads to the Father (John xiv. 6), 
and it is also said in reference to the Son, “ without me, ye can do 
nothing” (John xv. 5), an altogether peculiar relation is here to be 
presupposed. The hints already given on Matth. xii. 32, concern- 
ing the relation of the Trinity, furnish the key to this difficulty. 
All knowledge of God proceeds from the Father, in so far as in him 
power—the first attribute of which man is prepared to conceive— 
has its primary manifestation. Hence, when first the soul traces in 
itself living Divine operations, these are always the attractions of 
the Father ; it feels itself dependent, and learns to recognize God 
as the absolute power, as the Author and Sovereign of all things. 

* In the language of Paul, καλεῖν is parallel with ἑλκύειν ; the Father calls to the 
Son. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 9, πιστὸς ὁ Θεὸς δι’ οὐ ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ "Inaod 
Χριστοῦ. 


412 Joun VI. 45. 


But genuine knowledge of God necessarily involves the condition of 
development ; if the soul knows something of him, this draws it on 
to seek a more profound acquaintance with him. Now, he who 
made himself known as Power, reveals himself in the Son as abso- 
lute compassionate Love. Thus the Father continually draws to 
the Son, in the knowledge of whom fear (the beginning of wisdom) 
first becomes changed to reciprocal love. Again, however, the soul 
sincercly secking God is referred to the eternal Author of all being, 
for every creature is from God, through God, and to God. Accord- 
ingly the Son again conducts to the Father, as the Father drew to 
the Son. 

Finally, it is self-evident, first, that here there is obviously no 
reference to a drawing in opposition to the will of man (that would 
be compulsion), but rather to an internal awakening of the inclina- 
tion of the will towards God and his service ;* and secondly, that 
in this instance, as before, we are not to understand a knowledge of 
God consisting of mere opinions (which may be logically correct in 
those who are estranged from God), but an essential knowledge of 
God received in regeneration. Here, therefore, the discourse relates 
to real conditions which are developed successively as described in 
1 John ii, 15. ff. 

Ver, 45.—The connexion of this verse with the foregoing is not 
obvious. All connective particles are wanting. Some codices, it is 
true, supply οὖν after πᾶς, but B.C.D.L.S.T., 37, 69, 124, 235 omit 
it, and the addition of the particle is easily accounted for, since the 
subject seems to require it, whilst the omission, on the contrary, is 
not thus to be explained ; on this account Griesbach and Schulz 
have not even placed οὖν in the text. The context, however, 
plainly indicates that the citation is intended to prove the previous 
sentiment. Accordingly, γάρ is to be supplied. Now this connexion 
does not allow the antithesis between οὐδείς, none, (ver. 44) and πάντες, 
all (which is by no means designed here), to be urged ; on the con- 
trary, here the emphasis is only on the expression διδακτοὶ Θεοῦ, 
taught of God, to which the following ἀκούσας and μαθών refer. 
That expression indicates an internal operation of God upon men 
(comp. the remarks on vy. 37, 38), denoted by ἑλκύειν, drawing. 
Hence the Lord could employ this passage as proving the necessity 
of an internal operation of grace in order to the exercise of faith in 
himself, There is something remarkable in the phrase “it is writ- 
ten in the prophets” (ἐν τοῖς προφήταις), as if the words as they 
stand Isaiah liv. 13, occurred in several prophets. Moreover the text, 
even in Isaiah, does not quite correspond with the words of the Evan- 
gelist. The best conclusion therefore is, that Jesus alluded to all the 


* Luther on this subject quaintly observes, ‘‘ The drawing is not like that of the exe- 
cutioner, who draws a thief up the ladder to the gallows, but it is a kind allurement.” 


Joun VI. 46-53. 413 


prophetic passages in which reference is made to the effectuation of 
true Divine knowledge through the Spirit of God. [Respecting such 
collective quotations, comp. the remarks on Matth. ii. 23.] Others, 
less suitably, take the plural as a designation of the collection of 
writings ΡΣ ΠΝ δ 55, in which Isaiah stands. 

Ver. 46-50.—The following words restrict the idea of the knowl- 
edge of God just expressed, somewhat more closely. The unity 
and communion of the Son with the Father (see i. 18, iii. 18) can- 
not be compared therewith ; these stand alone and without analogy. 
(Concerning παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, comp. the remarks on Johni.1, 2. It is 
neither equivalent to πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, nor even to παρὰ σοί, John xvii. 5. 
On the contrary it designates origin.) Just on account of this 
peculiar position, the Son alone communicates the life—the world 
receives it from him. Whilst the manna only sustains physical life, 
he is the bread of life who nourishes to eternal life. (Comp. ver. 
31, 58.) Now the frequent mention already made of the resurrec- 
tion at the last day (ver. 39, 40, 44) indicates that, according to the 
meaning of Christ, the words καὶ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ, and may not die (ver. 
50) do not refer merely to the vanquishment of spiritual death, but 
also to corporeal, physical life ; but the thought does not attain™per- 
fect distinctness till we come to the sequel (ver. 51-59) where the 
conversation reaches its proper consummation. 

Ver, 51-53,*—The Redcemer at length more precisely explains 
the peculiar relation in which he calls himself the bread of life 
(ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς, or ἄρτος ζῶν); the bread that I will give you, he 
says, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world (ἡ odgé 
ov ἐστὶν, ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς). Here, however, 
we arrive at the point where we must once more look at the con- 
nexion, in order to answer the query, whether the Holy Supper is 
here referred to or not? The circumstance that, even to this 
day, it has been impossible to harmonize opinions on this point, 
would be inexplicable, but that the view entertained concerning the 
nature of the Supper has so easily operated upon the mind of the 
interpreter in the examination of this passage, and in the end 
must have its effect. For the mode of apprehending this doctrine 
stands in vital connexion with many others, particularly with the 
doctrine of the glorification of Christ’s body, and of bodies gen- 
erally, as also fundamentally with the doctrine of the relation 
of spirit to matter; and, therefore, as no one will introduce 
into his exposition sentiments at variance with his own princi- 
ples, the expositor’s general circle of ideas must exercise great 
influence in the interpretation of a passage like the present. He 

* Concerning John vi. 51-56, comp. the Treatise respecting Schulz’s doctrine of the 


Supper, by Pfarrer Steudel, in Klaiber’s Stud. Vol. ii. No. 2, p. 167, ff. and the remarks 
of Kling in the Stud. by Ullman and Umbreit, 1836, No. 1, p. 140, ff. 


414 Joun VI. 51-53. 


who does not find in Scripture the transformation of bodies gener- 
ally, and of Christ’s bodily nature in particular, of course cannot 
well allow that Christ here uttered sentiments which presuppose 
such views. On the other hand, he who acknowledges these doc- 
trines as biblical, can hardly suppose that the Lord employed the 
expression “‘ to eat his flesh and drink his blood” without any refer- 
ence to the Holy Supper, since, in this sacrament, the communica- 
tion of the glorified body must be to him the specific point. Besides 
the general difficulty, various subordinate matters have presented 
themselves in our passage, by which the views concerning it have 
been modified. In order, therefore, to a clear comprehension of the 
various expositions, a short history of its interpretation is needful.* 
The two principal explanations are found in the ancient Church, 
The one was maintained by Origen, and after him by Basil the 
Great. According to this, all reference to the Sacrament of the 
Supper was denied, and to eat and drink Christ’s flesh and blood 
was understood as meaning the spiritual participation of the 
Redeemer’s spiritual power. But as Origen discovered in the 
Supper itself also only a spiritual influence, he was under no ne- 
cessity of entirely excluding the reference of our passage to the 
Supper. True, he did so, but merely because it appeared to him 
unsuitable to suppose that the Lord spake of the Supper before its 
institution. 

The other explanation was offered by Chrysostom, who was fol- 
lowed by Cyril, Theophylact, and subsequently by the Scholastics 
and the whole Catholic Church. According to this, the followmg 
words in the sixth chapter of John strictly treat of the Sacrament 
of the Supper, so that this mention of it before its institution was, 
as it were, a prediction of it by Christ. Up to the time of the Re- 
formation, this view generally prevailed ; but it had no necessary 
connexion whatever with the gross doctrine of transubstantiation ; 
on the contrary, those who maintained this doctrine might just as 
well have been induced, by another turn of circumstances, to oppose 
the reference of our passage to the Sacrament of the Supper. But 
an adherence to exegetic tradition allowed no other interpreta- 
tion to become current. When this adherence was abolished by 
the free inquiry of the Reformers, Origen’s mode of interpretation 
was immediately revived among the Swiss. Zwingle viewed the 
passage more superficially, taking the “‘ flesh and blood” merely as 
metaphorical, while Calvin apprehended it more profoundly, discov- 
ering therein a designation of humanity completely penetrated by 
Divine life. But both considered that it simply described the re- 
ception of Christ in faith—the appropriation of his expiating and 
redeeming efficacy ; and thus they excluded a reference to the 

* Comp. Licke’s second Excursus in the 2d vol. of the Comm. p. 727, ff. 


Joun VI. 51-53. 415 


Sacrament of the Supper. Nevertheless they employed our pas- 
sage (especially John vi. 63) as a hermeneutic canon (thus Liicke 
expresses himself) for the doctrine of the Supper ; and since they 
did this, they might just as well have said that it strictly treats of 
the Sacrament, and shews how the Supper and its efficacy should 
be viewed ;* but as they did not for 4 moment allow the reference to 
the Sacrament, one might have supposed that Luther would have 
maintained it. However he by no means did so. Although he 
defended the more rigid idea of the Supper, which approached 
nearer to the Catholic view, yet he abandoned the old exegetic 
tradition, and denied even any reference of the passage of the Sa- 
crament.f There is no doubt that the occasion of this was his fear 
lest the—hypothesis, that the Supper was treated of in the sixth 
chapter of John, should commend the spiritual acceptation of the 
Swiss expositor (which the relation of ver. 51-59 to the previous 
passage on the bread of life appeared to favor) rather than his 
own. Still Luther in his exposition widely differed from the in- 
terpretation of the Protestants. In his view of this passage he 
followed Augustine, with the exception that this eminent Father 
very properly did not so utterly exclude all reference to the Supper 
as Luther did.t Both agreed in giving prominence to the fact that 
διδόναι σάρκα, giving his flesh (ver. 51) relates to the death of 
Jesus, and accordingly understood the eating and drinking, ete. 
(τρώγειν Kat πίνειν σάρκα καὶ αἷμα), as meaning the full enjoyment ot 
the blessings resulting from the death of the Lord. Hence Lu- 
ther, although he denied the allusion of the passage to the Sacra- 
ment, yet allowed to the expression flesh and blood its full, es- 


* Comp. Zwingle’s writings in the Auszuge by Usteri and Vogelin: Zurich, 1830, 
vol. ii. p. 77. “The sum of this matter may easily be derived from the sixth chapter of 
John. And here no attention is to be paid to those who at once cry out, ‘Christ does 
not treat of the Supper there at all!’ For although I also am of this opinion, yet all 
the incorrect notions which we form respecting the Supper are in the surest manner re- 
futed through what he there says. It was from this chapter I proceeded when, after 
long previous deliberation, I resolved to venture on this difficult and dangerous subject.” 
These words indicate Zwingle’s doctrinal obscurity ; for if John vi. makes no reference 
at all to the Supper, itis unintelligible how this chapter can furnish a refutation of the 
errors concerning the said doctrine. [Yet Olshausen himself subsequently admits that 
the passage may involve the principle of the Supper without referring to the rite. K.] 

+ Comp. Luther’s Werke, Walch’s edit. vol. vii. p. 2071: “Faith is the eater which 
eats and believes in Christ.” P. 2072, “Here the expressions are figurative; to eat, 
here means to participate spiritually.” P. 2075, “Jesus here speaks of true Christian 
faith as the main thing, and therefore it is said that thou must believe in his flesh and 
blood. This is comprehended in the article: ‘If thou wilt be a Christian, thou must be- 
lieve in the flesh and blood of Christ.’ ” 

1 Liicke (1. c. p. 572) declares the view of Augustine to be inconsistent, and says, 
“his exegesis was often different from his theology.” Although I quite concur in this 
criticism in relation to another point, still I think that Licke has here done the re- 
nowned Father an injustice. It appears to me that in the view which Augustine takes 
of this difficult passage, he has just hit upon the true media via. 


416 Joun VI. 51-53. 


sential signification, and did not, like Zwingle, refer it to a mere 
metaphor. 

The views of the Reformers still prevailed in their ecclesiastical 
communities up to the latest period, when the fetters of symbolism 
were thrown off, and thus at least the preparatory step—that of 
being able to consider the passage freely and without prejudice— 
was attained. The result was that the reference (so prominent in 
ver. 51) to the death of Christ, which Augustine and Luther very 
justly pointed out, became generally acknowledged. Liicke and 
Tholuck declare themselves in favour of this view. These scholars, 
however, feel compelled to exclude the reference to the Supper just 
as earnestly as Dr. Paulus and Schulz,* who do not even acknowl- 
edge a reference to the sacrificial death, but think, with Origen 
and Zwingle, that the whole passage is to be understood figura- 
tively. According to this view, the subject of discourse in our pas- 
sage would simply be “the entire phenomenon of Christ’s life and 
ministry on earth as the Messiah and the Son of God.” But such 
an interpretation, with all its freedom from symbolic constraint, 
evidently betrays a bondage to an unscriptural circle of ideas, which 
alone explains the circumstance that here the sacrificial death of 
Jesus is so entirely overlooked. (Comp. the particulars in the 
exposition of the single verses.) Liicke and Tholuck would have 
been perfectly right, had they admitted, at the same time with the 
reference to the death of the Lord, a reference also to the Supper, 
which is maintained by Scheibel (das Abendmahl des Herrn. Bresl. 
1823, p. 179, ff.), Knapp (in his Divinity), Bretschneider (probab. 
de evang. Jo. p. 86), and other modern interpreters. The admission 
of such a reference was the more natural, since the ceremony of the 
Supper itself involves an evident regard (in the breaking of the 
bread and the distribution of the wine)} to the expiatory death of 
Jesus. The eminent expositors above named were restrained from 
the impartial apprehension of this difficult passage, probably on the 
one hand by doctrinal influence, viz., by opposition to the scriptural 
doctrine of the glorification of the body, which, especially in Liicke 
more than once betrays itself ; and on the other by a confusion of 
the sacrament of the Holy Supper with the ¢dea from which it pro- 
ceeded—a confusion which probably has always contributed in the 
greatest degree to decide many distinguished interpreters against a 
reference to the Supper in our passage. It would indeed undoubt- 
edly seem inappropriate that the Saviour should speak of a rite be- 
fore its institution, so that no one could understand the subject of 
his discourse ; but it may be safely concluded that Christ had at an 


* Schulz Christl. Lehre vom heil. Abendmahl, Leipz. 1824, p. 155, ff. 162, ff 


+ Compare the exposition of Matth. xxvi. 26 and parallels in the History of the 
Sufferings. 


Joun VI. 51-53 417 


earlier period touched upon the idea from which the rite afterwards 
arose. That idea is no other than this, that Jesus is the principle 
of life and nourishment to the new, regenerated man, not merely 
for his soul and his spirit, but also for his glorified body. As this 
principle of life he offers himself, and gives himself, especially in his 
death ; hence the mention here, ver. 51 (as in the institution of the 
Supper) of his death, although this is by no means to be deemed 
the main point of the whole passage. As was above remarked, a 
distinction is also to be made in John iii. 5, between the sacrament 
and the idea of Baptism, the reference there certainly being to the 
latter, and by no means to the former. And here in like manner 
the idea of the Supper might be spoken of before the institution of 
the sacrament. For even if a full comprehension of the words was 
not to be expected, yet the vividness of the discourse may have ren- 
dered their essential contents distinctly cognizable to the disciples, 
as with the institution of the Supper itself, which was accompanied 
by no doctrinal statements, and the nature of which was only grad- 
ually unfolded. 

Now, if we take a closer view of particular points,* it is evident 
that ver. 51 is in the highest degree favourable to the interpretation 
of our passage as referring to the death of Christ ; for “ I will give 
my flesh for the life of the world” (δώσω σάρκα ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου 
ζωῆς) cannot with propriety be otherwise understood than as mean- 
ing to devote himself in death (διδόναι = παραδιδόναι.}} Also the 
comparison of ver. 85 shews that φαγεῖν may be taken = πιστεύειν. 
But in the formula καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δέ, if there is not exactly a transition 
to something altogether different, yet an advance in the subject of 
discourse is clearly indicated. And while acknowledging this, we 
must neither overlook the circumstance that this mention of the 
Lbrd’s sacrificial death does not exclude the reference to the idea of 
the Supper. Indeed, the institutive words of the Supper, as it has 
been remarked, contain the same mention of the death of Jesus, and 
the form of the rite presents a symbol of it. (Comp. Luke xxii. 
19: τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον.) According to 
1 Cor, xi, 26, the death of the Redeemer is to be proclaimed in 
the celebration of the Supper until he comes, his death being the 
source of life to the dead world ; while the Supper illustrates the 


* The words ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω in ver. 51 are probably spurious, and Lachmann has ex- 
pelled them from the text. This, however, has no influence on the sentiments contained 
in the passage, since in the interpretation these must be supplied from the whole course 
of thought. 

¢ The altogether superficial view which would make σάρξ mean the doctrine of Jesus, 
needs norefutation. Dr. Paulus, however, whom Shultz follows, understands the for- 
mula: διδόναι σάρκα, of the operation of the Logos upon the physical life for the welfare 
of mankind. But John’s usus loquendi by no means permits the expression to be so un- 
derstood. (Comp. Lticke in his Comm. Part ii. p. 99, f. 

Vou. 11.---ΩἹ 


4 


418 Joun VI. 54-59. 


quickening of the world at its highest point, shewing that even the 
corporeal nature, through the participation of the tree of life, again 
receives that eternal life which it lost in Paradise by tasting the 
tree of knowledge. The sacrificial death of the Lord, however, 
cannot be regarded as the predominant idea in our passage, because 
the giving (διδόναι) is not once repeated in the sequel, whilst eating 
and drinking the flesh and blood of the Lord is continually spoken 
of with the greatest emphasis. This emphasis is the more remark- 
able, since the Jews objected (ver. 52) to the words of Christ. 
These objections we might expect, from his wisdom as a teacher, 
wotlld have induced him to soften the force of his words, if 
the Jews had entirely misunderstood them, or if he had meant 
something quite different from what they supposed. But so far, 
from this, the Saviour only increases the pungency of his language* 
(the reason will be seen in the remarks on ver. 60), and maintains 
the sentiment unchanged, that his flesh and his blood are the 
source of the true life, and the participation of them is the condi- 
tion of the resurrection. Hence the passage can only be understood 
thus—that Jesus represents himself as the quickener (ζωοποιῶν) of 
the whole man, the spiritual quickening prevailing up to ver. 50, 
while from ver. 51 the idea which lies at the foundation of the Holy 
Supper—that the glorified corporeity of Christ sanctifies and glori- 
fies ours also—comes out in stronger relief ; and to this highest idea 
the formula καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δέ forms the transition. 

Ver. 54-59.—In these verses, with the eating and drinking of 
the flesh and blood of the Son of Man, are connected everlasting 
life (ζωὴ αἰώνιος, ver. 54), abiding in Christ (μένειν ἐν Χριστῷ, ver. 
56), and living forever (ζῇν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ver, 58), ἡ. e., the sublimest 
effects which the Redeemer purposed in general to call forth. With 
regard to the meaning of remaining in Christ, or inversely Christ’s 
remaining in us, which expression again occurs here, it is to be ob- 
served—as already remarked on John v. 38—that this belongs to 
the peculiar phraseology of John, (Comp. xiv. 10, 16, 17, xv. 4; 
1 John ii. 6, iii, 15, 17, iv. 12, 13, 15.) In the interpretation of this 
it is necessary to bear in mind the spirituality of John’s views, in ac- 
cordance with which he adopted the idea of a spiritual immanence, an 
essential mutual interpenetration of spirits and life in one another. 


* The expression τρώγειν itself is stronger than the previous terms ἐσθίειν and. φαγεῖν. 
It literally signifies to gnaw, to break off in little bits, then to triturate, to eat up. 
Liicke views the question of the Jews: πῶς δύναται x. τ. 2. as derisive, and says that 
Jesus may have repeated the same sentiment with emphasis, merely in order to subdue 
this derision. But this supposition is not consistent with ver. 60, ff, according to which 
the audience raised a serious opposition to the hardness of the saying. 

+ The reader scarcely needs to be reminded that I distinguish the essential, real, from 
the material. The penetration and transformation of matter by spirit is expressed in the 
doctrine of the Holy Supper. 


Joun VI. 54-59. 419 


Hence the abiding in Christ is not to be reduced to the genera, no- 
tion of a close connexion, but is to be understood as meaning a real 
being in each other. The life and being of Christ is an all-pene- 
trating, sanctifying, and glorifying power; the union of man with 
it, in all three departments of his being, is internal, real, essential. 
Hence the statement that ‘‘ Christ remaineth in us, and we in him” 
conveys the same signification as the Pauline expression, ἐνδύσασθαι 
Χριστόν, putting on Christ (Gal. iii. 27; Rom. xii, 14). (Comp. 
the description given of the Word of God or Wisdom, as the all-pene- 
trating power, Heb. iv. 12, and Wisd. Sol. vii. 22, 24). Now the 
effects mentioned as resulting from the participation of Christ’s 
flesh and blood might favour the opinion, that the formule τρώγειν 
σάρκα, πίνειν αἷμα, eating flesh, drinking blood, are to be understood as 
indicating merely the spiritual efficacy of Christ. But two things in 
our passage oppose this. 1.82, the phrase ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ 
ἡμέρᾳ, I will raise him up, etc., ver. 54. With respect to this it has 
already been remarked (on ver. 40), that it can only be explained as 
referring to corporeal resurrection. Now the fact that this is here so 
expressly referred to the participation of Christ’s flesh and blood, leads 
to an idea familiar to the early Fathers,* and acknowledged also by 
Luther,} in their signification, but which the prevailing idealism of 
the modern theory of the world could not adopt, viz., that the par- 
ticipation of the Lord’s glorified body implants in the bodies of be- 
lievers the germ of the resurrection, and, so to speak, begets the 
new body in the womb of the old, so that the day of resurrection is 
the moment of its birth. On the one hand this view alone allows 
the resurrection of the body to be recognized in connection with the 
general development of humanity ; for, according to this, it does 
not stand in isolation as a magical fact, but presents itself in union 
with the general, gradually advancing process of the transforma- 
tion of the fallen creation. On the other hand, it is the only one 
suited to the context of our passage, because without this funda- 
mental view, the mention of the resurrection either is altogether 
irrelevant here, or else must be regarded in the light of docetism, 
7. e., altogether denied as a literal fact, in conformity with the pre- 
vailing bias of modern theology. Secondly, our opinion is decidedly 

* Tgnatius (ep. ad Ephes. ο, 20), in reference to this, calls the Holy Supper the φάρ- 
μακον τῆς ἀθανασίας, medicine of immortality. This idea is further developed by Iren. 
ady. heer, iv. 28, 5, v. 2,2. Clem. Al. Pardag. ii. 2. (Comp. Munscher’s Dogmengescvh. 
Part ii. 348, ff.) 

+ Luther’s Werke, Walch’s edit. vol. xx. p. 1076, ff. 1094, ff. In the latter placa 
he says, “If he is eaten spiritually, through the word, he remains in us spiritually in the 
soul; if he is eaten corporeally, he remains in us corporeally also; as he is eaten, so he 
remains in us, and weinhim. For he is not digested and changed, but he without fail 
changes ws, the soul into righteousness, the body into immortality.” In these remarkable 


words, the profoundness of the doctrine of the Supper is finelyexpressed. As with Adam 
death came through food, so with Christ, through food, comes eternal life. 


420 Joun VI. 54-59. 


supported by ver. 55, where it is said : ἡ σάρξ μου, my flesh (i. 6. the 
flesh which the Logos has adopted and glorified) 42706 ¢ ἐστι βρῶσις, 
is truly food. As to the reading, important authorities (B.C.K.L, 
T. and several others), have, instead of ἀληθῶς, the adjective ἀληθής. 
In relation to the sense, this reading produces no essential altera- 
tion, and therefore none but external reasons can favour the reten- 
tion of ἀληθῶς in the text. But the change of sense would be very 
important, if ὁ ἀληθινός were read ;* for while ἀληθής is opposed to 
the false, ἀληθινός forms the antithesis to that which, though true, 
yet does not perfectly correspond with the ideal. The Logos is called 
(i. 9) the φῶς ἀληθινόν, because all other (even true) light does not 
reach his splendour. Accordingly, if ἀληθινός occurred here, or if 
we might exchange the term with ἀληθής, an exchange which the 
Johannine phraseology by no means allows, this would speak 
strongly for the spiritual interpretation, and this passage might 
then be placed in connexion with ver. 32, where Christ terms him- 
self ἄρτος ἀληθινός. But if ἀληθῶς remain, this passage is just as 
much opposed to that interpretation as it might otherwise have been 
favourable, for in the latter case the sense is as follows : “‘ My flesh is 
in truth food, and my blood is in truth drink ; believers may par- 
take them and receive them into themselves ;” 7. 6., ‘‘ what I say is 
no mere unsubstantial comparison, no empty metaphor ; it is in 
truth so to be understood.” The Jews evidently understood it thus, 
and hence they were so staggered at this discourse that they ceased 
to follow Jesus. Moreover, the Lord allows it to be so; he lets 
them go, without saying, ‘I mean a merely spiritual communica- 
tion,” which would have presented no difficulty to the mind of any 
one present. Hence a true exposition—one that gives the senti- 
ments of the work under consideration—must, even if the views of 
the expositor are entirely different, confess that here the discourse 
relates to a participation of the corporeality of Christ. The appar- 
ent contradiction to this, which may be derived from ver. 63, will 
hereafter be considered. It is only remarkable that Liicke, an ex- 
positor generally so impartial, could persuade himself that the 
words ὁ τρώγων με (ver. 57) give special support to his interpreta- 
tion of the passage as meaning that spiritual enjoyment of Christ 
which he thinks is rendered perfectly possible by his death. In 
reference to them he remarks: “hence it follows that the expres- 
sion flesh and blood (σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα) is synonymous with I (ἐγώ). Ὁ 
But ἐγώ surely designates the entire personality of the Lord ; and 

* Tholuck contests this, and I certainly did not formerly express myself with sufficient 
distinctness, inasmuch as I did not give prominence to the article. But that βρῶσις ἀλη- 
θής is something different from ἡ βρῶσις ἡ ἀληθινῇ cannot be denied. The true food 


stands in opposition merely to the deceptive, but the real to all relative means of nourishe 
ment. 


¢ Even Kling (1. 6.) has justly declared himself most decidedly opposed to this. 


Joun VI. 60-62. 421 


therefore, if in the participation of the Lord the corporeality is ex- 
cluded, or apprehended as relating merely to the death and not to 
the participation itself, then flesh and blood cannot possibly stand for 
I. Here it is synonymous only because the corporeality i is to be 
ee (As regards the use of διά, ver, 57, in the phrases διὰ τὸν 

τέρα, δι’ ἐμέ, it is not necessary to suppose that the preposition is 
five arbitrarily connected with the accusative instead of with the 
genitive ; on the contrary, the various relations which are intended 
to be expressed by the use of the same preposition with different 
cases, coincide in the idea, and so far they may be exchanged. 
Comp. Winer’s Gram. p. 339). 

Ver. 60-62.—The whole of the following passage contains almost 
as many external difficulties as the foregoing discourse of the Lord 
does in the zdeas. For, in the first place, it is in the highest de- 
gree remarkable that the Lord should thus suffer persons who had 
allied themselves to him, to leave him, without endeavouring to re- 
move the cause of their separation, by explaining the subject to 
them more clearly ; and, in the second place, it is no less singular 
that the Saviour even asks the twelve whether they too wish to 
leave him, and then mentions the betrayer. Obscure, however, as 
this mode of proceeding on the part of Christ appears at first sight, 
it is this very thing, when rightly apprehended, that furnishes the 
key to the form of the Redeemer’s foregoing discourse. Doubtless 
the Lord set forth such profound thoughts in these startling terms, 
on purpose to bring about that which, as we see, was the result, 
viz., a sifting of his disciples. It could have been of no consequence 
to Christ to have a few more disciples in companionship with him, 
nor could it be of any real advantage to them to follow him, un- 
less they adhered to him wholly, heart and mind, as the Being in 
whom the Father dwelt. The man that could be frightened away 
from one, whose heart-attracting influence he had felt, and whose 
miracles he had beheld, by a discourse which appeared to him unin- 
telligible or absurd, was trusting too much to his own understand- 
ing, and too little in Christ ; and although he might even carry 
within him many germs of good, he was not fit to labour for the 
kingdom of God. But to labour for the kingdom of God was the 
very calling of the first disciples. Hence it was needful that per- 
sons who could not endure the test should be separated, for the sake 
of their own welfare, and that of the growing Church. Probably 
the Lord also designed on this occasion to operate upon the mind of 
Judas Iscariot. It would have been a victory of truth if he had 
had the candour to withdraw, for his remaining with the Lord was 
assuredly a falsehood. He certainly had not been able to appropri- 
ate the words of Jesus, as probably even the other disciples had not 
(ver. 67, 68) ; and yet he was not held by that which bound the 


422 ΘΟῊΝ VI. 60-62. 


others, the flame of love in their hearts ; for had he possessed this, 
he could not have betrayed the Saviour:—he remained out of 
hypocrisy. Accordingly we here see Jesus, as it were, sitting in 
judgment on his disciples, and selecting afresh for his work only 
those who stood the trial. 

The second part of the exclamation uttered by the disciples 
about to withdraw from Christ—tic δύναται ἀκούειν, who can hear 
(= »"ὰ in the signification intelligere)—explains the term hard 
(σκληρός) in the first part. Its predominating idea is difficult to un- 
derstand. But this predominance of the one idea does not exclude 
the other, of offensive ; for that which is difficult to understand may, 
so far as it is understood, be offensive, and this was the case here. ° 
Hence the Redeemer immediately employs the term σκανδαλίζειν, 
offend. In the discourse of Christ there is an evident aposiopesis 
which must be supplied by means of the idea, ‘‘ ye will see some- 
thing still greater, ἡ. e., more difficult to comprehend!” Thus the 
antithesis is first between the ess and the greater, and secondly be- 
tween hearing and seeing. Were they already offended by a word, 
what would they say to actual facts! The greater actual phenome- 
non referred to, is the Son of Man’s ascending where he was before. 

This passage is in the highest degree remarkable. In the first 
place, it is the only instance in which the ascension is mentioned 
by the Lord himself.* It is true, Christ often speaks of his return 
to the Father, but without express reference to his return with his 
glorified body. Even this, however, must here be granted on ac- 
count of the connexion ; while the very term Son of Man indicates 
the corporeality of Christ. To suppose a spiritual return would 
not have occasioned the least difficulty to any of the hearers ; but 

* De Wette rejects the reference to the ascension, because that is not related in John. 
But in this one place it is mentioned, and the circumstance of its not being afterwards 
expressly narrated, is sufficiently explained by the fact that it was merely a natural con- 
sequence of the resurrection. The same scholar further remarks, that “the ascent of 
Jesus to the place where he was before does not relate to his flesh, which he certainly 
had not before his descent.” But these words are altogether without meaning ; for it is 
not here said that he returned to the place where he was in the flesh, before the descent; 
but that as perfect man, and therefore with his glorified humanity, he returned to the 
place where he was before, viz., without this. Liicke and Tholuck think that if the 
ascension had been referred to, instead of υἱὸς τ. d. the expression σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα must 
have been employed. By no means; for it was not merely the corporeal nature that 
ascended to heaven, but the entire Christ with the corporeality. This unity is expressed 
by the very name ὑ, τ. ὁ, With respect to the question whether there is a heaven any- 
where to which an ascent can be made, the treatise in the Evang. Kirchenzeit., 1837, 
“Das Land der Herrlichkeit,” may be consulted. *At any rate, the glorified corporeality 
must be conceived of as somewhere (if not according to the idea of localitas, yet accord- 
ing to that of alicubitas.) An ubiquitas personalis entirely destroys the idea of corpore- 
ality ; it can only be conceived ofas operativa. But the decisive point with regard to tho 
whole passage, is furnished by the connexion which necessarily indicates the design 


to bring forward something more difficult than what preceded. Although Liicke pro 
nounces this view dubious, he cannot remove it from the connexion. 


Joun VI. 69. 423 


here the Redeemer speaks of something still more difficult and still 
more staggering than the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood ; 
and well might the exaltation of the Messiah’s humanity in the 
heavenly world be so to his audience, since even to the present time 
this idea is rarely acknowledged. Jn the second place, this passage 
renders it necessary to carry back our conclusion to what precedes ; 
as here the discourse cannot have reference to a merely spiritual re- 
turn—which presents nothing that would be unintelligible even to 
the weakest—so also in the former portion, the participation of his 
flesh and blood must designate more than merely spiritual influences 
of Christ upon believers. The entire discourse relates to his glori- 
Jjied corporeal nature, the reality of which John, according to his 
main design, was compelled to defend against gnosticising doceti- 
cism, just as now it has become needful to maintain it in opposition 
to idealistic gnosis. 

Ver, 63.—But this verse appears again to favour the spiritual 
interpretation of the formula ‘to eat flesh and blood,” and in fact 
all the supporters of that interpretation have ever laid special stress 
on this passage. It is also quite undeniable that in this verse the 
words of the Logos, who is the life, are themselves represented as 
life (carrying life in themselves as well as producing life ζωοποιοῦν), 
from which it follows that they must also be received in spirit and 
in life. In these words, therefore, we at any rate may discover an 
argument: against a carnal interpretation of his discourse. But 
hence it only follows that the Lord intended to exclude such gross 
views, respecting the participation of his flesh as were entertained 
by the men of Capernaum, and by no means that he denied all par- 
ticipation of Ais flesh, asserting only a spiritual impartation of 
himself. The only way of rendering the passage subservient to the 
spiritual interpretation has been to take ἡ σὰρξ obk ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν, the 
flesh profiteth nothing, as synonymous with ἡ σάρξ pov, my flesh.* 
But the flesh of Christ as begotten by the Holy Ghost, and dwelt 
in by the Logos, and thus sanctified and glorified, is itself spiritual 
(πνευματικόνν ; hence his flesh is eaten, not with the mouth of the 
body, but with the mouth of faith.t It is not till a new man is 
born through the inward baptism of the Spirit that there is an organ 
for the reception of the Lord’s sacred body. Accordingly the mis- 
apprehension consists in conceiving of the flesh without the Spirit 
(z. e., as not glorified by the Spirit), and thus mistaking the nature 
of Christ’s corporeality. Admit the statement of Scripture, that 
the Lord is exalted on the throne of his glory at the right hand of 


* Comp. the excellent remarks of Kling on this passage (loc. cit. p. 150, ff.), who takes 
it as altogether on the side of Christian realism, being equally directed against spiritualism 
and false materialism. 

+ As regards my view of the Supper generally, comp. the remarks on Matth. xxvi. 
26, ff. 


424 JoHN VI. 64-69, 


the Father with his holy humanity, and in it he will return to judge 
the living and the dead (comp. Actsi. 11, οὕτως ἐλεύσεται, Ov τρόπον 
ἐθεάσασθε αὐτὸν πορευόμενον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, 7. 6., In his corporeality), 
then the true meaning of our passage would never be mistaken ; 
doctrinal prejudices alone have obscured the view in its interpretation. 
(Concerning the opinion of Schulz, that a σ ὦ μα πνευματικόν, spirit- 
ual body, may be spoken of, but not a σὰρ ἔ πνευματική, spiritual 
flesh, comp. the remarks on Matth. xxvi. 26. The latter term cer- 
tainly does not occur in 1 Cor. xv., σῶμα being always used, and the 
unquestionable reason is that σάρξ = wa is prevalently employed 
as the antithesis to πνεῦμα. But that it could not be used is deci- 
dedly incorrect. It does not appear what pneumatic element should 
pertain to a body that does not to the flesh ; for there is no body 
but one consisting of flesh [or, in the inanimate state, xpéac], 
since, in the nature of the case, the idea of an organic whole can be 
applied only to that which is material. In this passage, ver. 63, 
σῶμα of course could not be employed, but in ver. 54 the expression 
σῶμα φαγεῖν would have been equally appropriate, as is shewn by 
Matth. xxvi. 26.) ; 

Ver. 64, 65.—The fact that several of the disciples were induced 
by the foregoing discourse of Jesus entirely to withdraw from him, 
is now traced by the Lord to an evil principle in their hearts, viz., 
unbelief. The Evangelist here remarks that Christ possessed the 
gift of perceiving the condition of men as it regarded faith, con- 
cerning which subject compare the remarks on 11. 24: Here again, 
of course unbelief is only to be taken relatively, otherwise it would 
destroy the idea of μαθητής, disciple. Doubtless those persons pos- 
sessed a certain faith ; not, however, that living, substantial faith, 
which springs from pure love to that which is Divine, but a faith 
attained through the understanding. They probably found that 
certain external signs predicted by the prophets, for the recognition 
of the Messiah, were fulfilled in Jesus, and for this reason they allied 
themselves to him. But his heavenly nature had not reached their 
hearts, and accordingly, as soon as their narrow understanding 
thought itself violated by his discourse, they withdrew. Jesus 
therefore adds, ver. 65, that on this account he had said: ‘‘ Without 
the drawing of the Father, without the inmost awakening of the 
heart by the power of the Spirit, no one can really seek the Son.” 
On this subject comp. the remarks ver. 37 and 44. 

Ver. 66-69.—F rom that time many not only merely forsook the 
Lord externally, but turned from him in their hearts. ΟἸΛπέρχεσθαι 
εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω again occurs, John xviii, 6, and in John xx. 14, we find 
the expression στρέφεσθαι εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω. In the Hebrew minx 3:5», Ps. 
xxxv. 4.) It is a striking declaration which Peter, in the name 
of ail the apostles, returns to the question of the Lord—p7 καὶ 


Joun VI. 70, 71. 425 


ὑμεῖς θέλετε ὑπάγειν ; will ye also go away? It expresses the true 
attachment produced by the power of the Spirit, and that pro- 
found affection which is not to be loosened by any intellectual 
difficulties, because it awakens the consciousness of personal 
weakness and poverty, as well as of the glory of the Lord. What 
they found in him they could expect no where else, for it was the 
eternal itself, that which would present itself in humanity in One 
sublime personage alone.* According to the ordinary reading, ὅτι 
σὺ εἰ Χριστὸς, 6 υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ζῶντος, that thow art the Christ, etc., 
this passage would be quite parallel with Matth. xvi. 16. How- 
ever, it is but too probable that ours has been corrected from that. 
According to the authority of the MSS., the -only reading here is 
ὅτι σὺ el ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ, that thou art the Holy One of God. This 
appellation is rare in the New Testament. . It occurs in Luke iv. 
34, and, according to ver. 41, it appears synonymous with Son of 
God. Also Mark i. 24, we have ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ. Rev. iii. 7, merely 
ἅγιος occurs, and Acts iv. 27, ἅγιος παῖς Θεοῦ. The only instance in 
the Old Testament where the name is applied to the Messiah is 
Dan. ix. 24. Perhaps the reason for selecting the expression here, 
was, that to many of the disciples the previous obscure discourse of 
Christ appeared unholy, so that it was to be understood thus: 
“ Notwithstanding the obscure discourses to which we have listened, 
and which sounded to us as if unholy, yet we know that in thee the 
holiness of the Father is manifested to us.” 

The significant position of the πιστεύειν, believing, and γινώσκειν, 
knowing (ver. 69), remains to be observed. Here, as xvii. 8, the 
two expressions are so placed that the knowledge appears as the 
consequence of the faith, but John x. 38, and John iv. 42, they 
stand just inversely. Liicke, therefore, truly observes that the posi- 
tion is not to be pressed. True faith never exists without the germ 
of knowledge, and yet perfected knowledge here below never exists 
without faith ; the two ideas are necessarily correlates. 

Ver. 70, 71—The following words are evidently intended to in- 


* On this subject Schubert justly writes in the Symbolik des Traums, p. 168, as fol- 
lows: “ The strong is only overcome by a stronger; the weakest of our sensual propen- 
sities is stronger than the strongest intellectual reasoning which operates merely upon the 
inward ear, not upon the heart; and man is improved only when a higher and nobler 
love takes possession of his propensities, and quenches the lower and less noble—when 
the light of a higher sun extinguishes the glimmer of a poor spark.” Such was the 
effect which the apostles had experienced in their hearts; their hearts burned with 
light and fire which the Lord ha@ kindled within them, and this drew them to its 
source. 

+ It is interesting here to notice the distinction of Alexander of Hales between intel- 
lectual vocis vel signi, and intellectus rei; the former, he says, precedes faith, the latter 
follows it, for nothing can be believed that is not in a certain sense already perccived. In 
the New Testament, however, γενώσκειν and γνῶσις are prevalently employed in the late 
ter, more profound sense of the word, so that it presupposes faith. 


426 Joun VI. 70, 71. 


vite'the disciples to a more thorough self-examination. Jesus there- 
fore directs their attention to the favour conferred upon them in the 
call that he had given them, and at the same time points out the 
ingratitude of one among them, whom, however, he does not name. 
Had uprightness now triumphed in the heart of Judas, he would 
have been compelled either to withdraw, or make an open confession 
to Christ ; but he persisted in his corruption, and filled up the meas- 
ure of his sins. As to the expression διάβολος, it cannot be trans- 
lated “devil.” For it would be necessary either to view the passage 
as meaning “he is the Devil,” ὁ. e., the Devil has taken possession 
of his heart (as is said John xiii. 27), in which case the article 
must have been employed, or else to render the words “one is ὦ 
devil.” In the latter signification, however, as equal to δαιμόνιον, 
neither διάβολος, nor σατᾶν occurs; both expressions in the New 
Testament constantly designate the Prince of this world. It ap- 
pears, therefore, that the term should here be understood in the 
general signification of opponent. (Matth. xvi. 23 is not to be par- 
alleled with this passage. Comp. my Comm. in loco.) Still, 
Tholuck justly remarks, in opposition to this, that for Christ to 
say, “‘One among you is an opponent,” would have been feeble, 
and moreover, some addition might have been expected, such as 
διάβολός μου or Θεοῦ. Hence Iam now inclined to understand the 
expression as meaning, one among you is (not ὦ devil) but the devil; 
i. e., What the devil is among the children of God, that is this person 
among you. Jesus probably contemplated his circle as a type of the 
heavenly sphere: as he himself represents the Father, and the dis- 
ciples the angels, so Judas represents the Devil. Διάβολος then 
stands here as a familiar proper name without the article. 


Π. 


PART THE SECOND. 


FROM THE JOURNEY OF CHRIST TO THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES TILL 
THE JOURNEY TO THE LAST PASSOVER. 


(John vii. 1; xi. 57.) 


§ 1. Curist’s JouRNEY To THE Frast or TABERNACLES. 
(John vii. 1-36.) 


Ver. 1, 2—It has already been indicated, John v. 18, that a 
powerful hatred against the Lord had been developed in the minds 
of the Jews, and our Evangelist exhibits its gradual ripening, 
especially in this second part of his work. So long, however, as 
his hour was not yet come, Jesus avoided their snares, and on this 
account for a long time refrained from going into Judeea. Neverthe- 
less the Feast of Tabernacles induced the Redeemer to visit Jeru- 
salem, probably because, being faithfully obedient to the law of the 
Old Testament, he carefully fulfilled the command Exod. xxiii. 17, 
without being disturbed about the possible consequences, The 
journey to the Feast of Tabernacles is parallel with Luke ix. 51 
(comp. the Comm, on Luke ix. 51). For, according to the follow- 
ing representation in John, the Lord did did not return to Galilee 
after this journey to the feast (comp. John vii. 37 with x. 22, 
40, xi. 54), but remained in Judea, whence he made short ex- 
cursions into the neighbourhood. 

The Feast of Tabernacles (nizen sn or srexn ἡ, 6., “feast of 
booths,” or ‘‘ harvest-feast”) belonged, with the Passover and Pen- 
tecost, to the three principal Feasts of the Jews. It was celebrated 
on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, or September. It had 
reference especially to the sojourn of the Jews in the desert, in com- 
memoration of which booths were constructed of boughs, and the 
great providential favours bestowed by God were called to mind 
with joy and delight. Connected with this was the celebration of 
the vintage, but only incidentally (comp. Levit. xxiii. Deut. xvi). 

Ver. 3-5.—The relatives of the Lord (on the ἀδελφοί, comp. at 
Matth. xiii. 55) seek to induce him to attend the Feast in Jerusalem 


428 Joun VII. 6-8. 


with them, by making the remark that he will here have a suitable 
opportunity for manifesting himself to the world. Although these 
words may not have been spoken without some feelings of derision, 
yet it need not be supposed that they proceeded from absolute 
hostility. The minds of these persons were probably in a state of 
vacillation. On the one hand, the words and discourses of Jesus 
had awakened their susceptibility to Divine influence, while, on the 
other, they could not persuade themselves that he whom they had 
seen taking part in the minuter occurrences of life was so entirely 
superior. "They may, therefore, in part themselves have been look- 
ing for some decisive evidence which should enable them to believe. 
—This passage is further very important in fixing the import of 
ἀδελφοί, for since they did not believe, they of course cannot have 
been among the disciples, and it has therefore been thought neces- 
sary to suppose that Jesus had two kinds of brothers, believing and 
unbelieving (brothers proper and cousins), for which supposition, 
however, no ground at all exists.“ (Liicke justly observes that ver. 
4, αὐτός is to be taken as the Latin ¢dem in the signification “and 
at the same time,” “and yet.” Tholuck and Kling [loc. cit. p. 154] 
keep αὐτός to the signification ‘ himself,” in order to render prom- 
inent the personal reference ;—‘‘ and yet he himself seeks to become 
celebrated by his acts.” The ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ is defined by the contrast- 
ing ἐν κρεπτῷ ; publicity includes here at the same time the idea of 
celebrity. ἘΠ in ver. 4 is evidently to be taken hypothetically : ‘it 
thou canst do such things, which we do not believe ;” for the words 
[ver. 5] which express the unbelief of the brothers, refer to this 
doubt.) 

Ver, 6-8.—Jesus now refuses to go with his brethren to the 
Feast, and, for the purpose of awakening their minds, directs their 
attention to the different positions in which he and they stood with 
respect to a higher will. They, free and separate from God, fol- 
lowed the guidance of their own inclination ; he, on the conte 
never acts arbitrarily, but according to the will of God, in obedi- 
ence only to his intimations. This is called, in other instances, 
in the Johannine phrase, “hearing what: the Father speaks, see- 
ing what he does ;” it presupposes an inward compulsion by the 


* QOlshausen’s view (expressed in his Comm. on Luke iv. 21, 22) is, that our Lord had 
no real brothers, but only cousins. He supports his opinion chiefly by the following ar- 
guments—first, that if the mother of Jesus had had other sons, it is not likely that they 
would have had the same names as the sons of Mary, the wife of Cleopas, one of whom 
was called James, and another Joses (Matth. xxvii. 56;) secondly, that if the mother of 
Jesus had had sons of her own, it is not likely that Jesus would have committed her to 
the care of John, who did not belong to the family; thirdly, that since, according to the 
Old Testament prophecies, we cannot look upon the family of David as continued in the 
line from which the Messiah sprang, it is more suitable to regard it as concluded in 
Jesus, the eternal Ruler of the House of David.—[Tr. 


Juun VII. 7-13. 429 


power of the Spirit, a perpetual internal observance of God and his 
operations, such as only in the regenerated finds a certain analogy. 
The natural man—even one who is legally faithful—goes, comes, 
labours, rests, according to his own fancies, and cannot do other- 
wise, because he has not this bond, the Spirit of God, to guide all 
his steps. (Concerning καιρὸς ἐμός, my time, comp. the remarks on 
John ii. 4; Matth. xxvi. 18. Here, as also ver. 30, we are not to 
understand by it the termination of the earthly life of Christ, but 
anearer point of time, which is nevertheless to be viewed as of 
Divine appointment.) 

Ver. 7 expressly indicates the enmity of man as the reason that 
deterred Christ. In relation to this also, a similar difference ap- 
pears between Christ and his brethren, The latter belong even 
in their animating principle of life, to the world; the Lord, on 
the contrary, brings the Spirit that opposes everything worldly. 
Hence the world must contend against him, and hate him as the 
Destroyer of its life, even as it hates all those in whom the Spirit 
of Christ operates (John xvii. 14). 

The open declaration in ver. 8, οὐκ ἀναβαίνω, I go not up, is re- 
markable, sincein ver. 10 it is said : τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ἀνέβη εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν, 
then also he himself went, etc. Through fear lest the Lord should 
here seem to have spoken falsely,* some transcribers have put οὔπω, 
not yet, instead of οὐκ, not, and Knapp and Lachmann have even re- 
ceived it into the text. But, in addition to some MSS., in Mat- 
theei and versions, only the codices D. and K. contain this reading. 
Moreover, it is evident that a doctrinal motive may easily have 
occasioned the correction. Viewed, however, with an unprejudiced 
mind, the passage presents no real difficulty. For since οὔπω imme- 
diately follows, it is self-evident that in the same way οὐκ is to be 
understood with the addition of viv. Οὐκ ἀναβαίνω, I go not up, is 
not a negative with respect to the entire future (nay, the future is 
not employed), but merely in reference to the present point of time. 
Tholuck, indeed, thinks the words ‘‘to this feast” (εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν 
ταύτην) would shew that the Redeemer did not intend to go at 
all, and on this account conjectures an inaccurate report of the lan- 
guage of Christ. But there seems no sufficient reason for this 
hypothesis. 

Ver. 9-13.—In the course of a few days, the Lord also proceeded 
to Jerusalem, and, that he might not excite observation, he went 
in perfect silence. (I understand the words ὡς ἐν κρυπτῷ, ver. 10, 
like the expression 1, 14, as the so-called 5 veritatis, “‘ quite in secret.” 
Liicke, who is followed by Tholuck and De Wette, translate, ‘as it 

* Where this anxiety has not been felt, the passage has actually been employed in 


defence of falsehoods of necessity. An apparent instance of this kind occurs also in the 
Old Testament in the passage 2 Kings viii. 10, 14. 


430 Jone va 4:18 


were.” But since the open declaration οὐ φανερῶς precedes, the stress 
should lie on the words dav’ ὡς ἐν κρυπτῷ ; with which Liicke’s view 
is evidently not quite consistent.) Verses 11-13 describe the ex- 
citement of the people respecting Jesus; no one was indifferent, 
but the opinions concerning him were very divided ; only the peo- 
ple shrank from publicly expressing them on account of the Sanhe- 
drists. (Αγαθός, ver. 12, according to the common usus loquendi, 
is to be understood only in a subordinate sense, as meaning one who 
does not actually cherish evil designs.) 

Ver. 14, 15,—It was not till the middle of the Feast that Jesus 
made his appearance publicly and taught inthe Temple. (The 
Feast lasted, as all great Feasts of the Jews, seven days, and hence 
the middle was the fourth day.) From the following remarks of 
the Jews, it is probable that the Redeemer did not merely teach in 
the open air in the front court, but delivered a formal discourse, 
perhaps in the synagogue, which was situated in the court of the 
women. (Comp. Tholuck on the passage.) The auditors were sur- 
prised at his erudition, as they knew that he had not enjoyed the 
usual rabbinical education. (As the Jews knew of no learning 
apart from religion, the γράμματα, letters, are simply the Sacred 
Scriptures, in the exposition of which the entire education of the 
Jews was concentrated.) According to the Jewish custom (with 
respect to which, however, it is questionable whether it had been 
worked into such a definite shape in the time of Christ), no one 
could teach unless he had been the formal pupil of a Rabbi (7%$n) 
and a Rabbi’s assistant (739). Noone but a regular Rabbi might 
deliver his own sentiments ; the pupils and assistants were only at 
liberty to repeat what they had learned. (Comp. Tholuck on the 
passage. ) 

Ver. 16-18.—The Saviour, proceeding from this remark, points 
out the difference between his doctrine and that of the Rabbies. 
The object, to which the teaching of the Rabbies pointed, was in- 
deed substantially the right one (Matth. xxiii. 2, 3), but their rela- 
tion to the true doctrine was false. They taught without a true 
Divine commission, and without a Divine call (ἀφ᾽ ἐαυτῶν), and in 
so doing sought honour from men ; hence they were characterised 
by inward falseness and injustice. (’Adixia, ver. 18, designates the 
unjust relation generally,* in which their moral life stood to God. 
Comp. the remarks on Rom. iii. 21.) On the contrary, the Lord 
says of himself, that he does not regard his teaching as his own (ov« 
ἔστιν ἐμή), he does not speak of and from himself (ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ), but 


* According to Liicke and Tholuck, ἀδικία is = “pv Or mana in the signification of 
falsehood. But in that case we should only have had here an inversion of the sentence 
οὗτος ἀληθής ἐστι. ᾿Αδικία certainly never exists without internal falsehood, but ἀδικία 
and ψεῦδος are not on this account synonymous. 


Joun VII. 16-18. 431 


in the name and by the commission of God (τοῦ πέμψαντός we), whose 
honour alone he seeks. (With respect to the same thoughts, comp. 
v. 44, viii. 50.) Accordingly self-seeking and freedom from every- 
thing selfish, here form the antitheses ; the former disqualifying for 
the reception of blessing from Divine things, even though they are 
possessed and taught, as the Pharisees had assuredly the words of 
the Old Testament revelation. This obscuration of the inner man 
through impurity is especially pointed out ver. 17, and enlarged 
upon ver. 19, ff. In this the Redeemer discloses the secret reason 
of the strange phenomenon, that men could not perceive the bright 
lustre of the Divine nature in Christ. Jesus describes the knowl- 
edge of the divinity of his doctrine as dependent upon willingness 
to do the will of God (θέλειν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ ποιεῖν.) 

It is evident that here the will of God is not merely the injunc- 
tion of Christ alone, but also that of the Old Testament (comp. 
ver, 19, ff), and even of conscience itself (Rom. ii. 14). The Di- 
vine command is in its nature one and the same in all the forms of 
its manifestation, but is represented in different degrees of develop- 
ment, Sincerity in regard to the known law of God is always re- 
quired ; this determines the real position of the mind towards God, 
and prepares it for deeper and deeper penetration into that knowl- 
edge. On the contrary, he who is corrupt and does not practise 
what he knows, but evades the practice by sophisms (the very con- 
duct of Pharisaism), blinds himself, until at length he cannot see 
the brightest light. This is a practical passage, and of the highest 
importance to biblical psychology ; for its fundamental idea is, that 
the faculty of knowing does not act in isolation, but that man’s 
capacity for knowledge is constantly conditional upon his ¢nclina- 
tion.* If the inclination follows what is not pleasing to God, it be- 
clouds the capacity for knowledge, the mirror of the soul becomes 
obscured, and lusts are corrupted into error (Ephes, iv. 21); but if 
the desire be directed towards that which is Divine, the ability to 
know it increases. Hence in our passage knowledge is intentionally 
described as dependent, not upon doing but upon being willing to 
do (θέλειν ποιεῖν). The perfect accomplishment of the will of God 
is partly impossible to any one on account of sinfulness, and partly 
often prevented by circumstances ; but even sinful man may, under 
all circumstances, constantly develope in the depths of his soul the 


* Liicke is correct in his opinion that the older exposition of this passage, which 
makes doing the will of God here mean faith in Jesus, and the fulfilment of his com- 
mands, is not the primary; for ver. 19 clearly shews that the discourse has reference also 
to the fulfilment of the Mosaic law. But this does not interfere with the use of our 
passage as an argument for Christianity from internal experience, since it involves the 
idea that the faithful application of what is known concerning God is the only means bz 
which we can continually attain a more profound and essential knowledge of him and of 
kis will 


432 Joun VII. 19-24. 


OéAesv (i.e. not the positive, practically efficacious will [βούλεσθαι], but 
the negative desire and longing)—and in this consists the pruper 
essence of the fear of God, and of love to the truth. Hence Pas- 
cal very truly says: ‘“ Human objects must be known in order to be 
loved, Divine must be loved in order to be known.” 

Ver. 19, 20.—The Redeemer now discloses the fact that they 
themselves were making no effort whatever to fulfil the law of God 
as delivered to them by Moses, in such a manner, that he brings to 
light their hostile feelings towards himself. Jesus, as it were, says, 
(ς Ye disobedient men do not even keep the most essential com- 
mands of the law.” Probably his reason for extending the state- 
ment thus universally to all (ver. 19. οὐδεὶς ἐξ ὑμῶν) was that those 
who gathered most closely around him were thoroughly zealous op- 
ponents, who sought to catch him in his words. For ver. 25 
there appear some, who are decidedly distinguished from such as 
seek to kill. Hence I cannot agree with the opinion of Tholuck, 
who observes that the exclamation of the multitude : ‘‘ Thou hast a 
demon,” proceeded from persons in the crowd who, having come 
from abroad, were not acquainted with the evil designs of the lead- 
ing men. These impenitent persons are judged far more correctly, if 
we assume that even the most furious opponents of Christ hypocrit- 
ically tried to present themselves as pure before him. (The formula 
δαιμόνιον ἔχεις, thou hast a devil, is here to be taken merely as a pre- 
vailing mode of expression synonymous with madness. The most 
striking proof of this is furnished by John x. 20, where the latter 
term is employed as an explanation of the former. The expression 
certainly was fouaded on the notion that madness originated in 
being possessed by evil spirits; but when this language was em- 
ployed, the speaker of course did not possess a distinct conscious- 
ness of this connexion. Hence, in this case, it was by no means in- 
tended to say that Christ spoke by the power of the devil. The 
expression had a different meaning in Matth. xu. 24; comp. the 
Comm. on the passage.) 

Ver. 21-24-_The Redeemer drops the question respecting their 
desire to kill him, probably because this desire, being purely internal, 
could not be demonstrated. He confines himself to the disclosure 
of their want of right principle, in representing him as a violator of 
the Sabbath, on account of his beneficent act of healing, whilst they 
themselves-no less broke the Sabbath by circumcising on that day. 
(In regard to that matter, comp. the remarks on Matth. xii. 3, ff.) 

But the special question here is, to what does ὃν ἔργον, one work 
(ver 21), refer ? It is said that the subject of reference was the 
healing on the Sabbath, recorded John v.1, ff. But this took place 
during a former visit of Christ to Jerusalem, and it would have 
been a strange thing if the very same Pharisees who then censured 


Joun VII. 21-24. 433 


him on account of that act, had again rebuked him for it now. It 
is far more natural to suppose that a similar case had again occurred, 
and that this gave rise to the whole conversation. Moreover, that 
Jesus had again wrought miracles is clearly shewn by ver. 31. He 
contrasts his single deed with the continual occurrence of circumcis- 
ion, which, in the cases of all children born on the Sabbath, was 
performed on the eighth day after, ἡ. e., on the following Sabbath. 
(Θαυμάζειν here evidently involves the additional idea of censuring, just 
as it may express also the additional idea of praising, according to 
the connexion in which it occurs. It ordinarily takes the genitive, 
and occasionally the accusative. The construction with διά is rare ; 
but compare Mark vi. 6, and also Aelian, V. H. xii. 6, where it is 
said of Marius: θαυμάζομεν αὐτὸν διὰ τὰ ἔργα. Schulz, however, 
thinks it necessary to differ from Griesbach and Knapp, and refers 
διὰ τοῦτο to the sequel. He observes that John frequently begins 
sentences with διὰ τοῦτο, 6. g., v. 16, 18, vi. 65, viii. 47, ete., as also 
1 John ii, 1, iv. 5. Still, in the case before us, its connexion with 
the sequel does not appear altogether appropriate, as we thus gain 
for διὰ τοῦτο no fitting sense. Liicke is of the same opinion.) The 
parenthetical remark, ver. 22, that circumcision originated from the 
Patriarchs (πατέρες --ΞΞ- niax comp. Rom. ix. 5, Exod. iii. 15) deserves. 
our notice. (Οὐχ ὅτι relates to the preceding clause, Μωσῆς δέδωκεν 
ὑμῖν τὴν περιτομήν, thus: “1 do not mean to say that it literally 
originated from Moses ; its origin was more ancient.”) The object 
of this remark is doubtless no other than to augment the importance 
of circumcision by adducing its higher antiquity. Then, since this 
involved, as it were, a justification of their conduct in practicing 
circumcision on the Sabbath, it also increased the force of the argu- 
ment that Jesus employed ; for if they themselves infringed the 
Sabbath, why might not the Redeemer do so too, and especially for 
a still more worthy purpose ? Circumcision, like everything belong- 
ing to the Old Testament, referred only to the flesh, while the heal- 
ing performed by Christ related to the whole man (comp, the Comm, 
on Matth., viii. 2); with him the cure of the body was merely a step- 
ping-stone to the restoration of spiritual life. 

(The observation that the ὅλος ἄνθρωπος stands in contrast with 
the ἕν μέλος affected by circumcision, appears to me quite unsuit- 
able.* The entire man necessarily includes the inner life, and 


* Kling (loe. cit. p. 156), with whom Tholuck agrees, thinks that the wounding of one 
member in circumcision is contrasted with the corporeal healing of the whole man by 
Christ. But according to this, circumcision is represented as inflicting injury upon man— 
a view quite contrary to that of the Old Testament; it was a means of salvation, which, 
however, like everything belonging to the Old Testament, has merely an external and 
metaphorical efficacy, while Christ saves internally. This view is quite consistent with 
the following κατ᾽ ὄψιν, according to appearances, which is here equal to κατὰ σάρτα, ac 
cording to the flesh. 


Vor. 11.---28 


434 Joun VII. 25-27. 


therefore the expression cannot denote merely the body. Ἵνα μὴ 
λυθῇ ὁ νόμος Μωσέως is to be understood thus: “in order that the 
law should not be broken.” Now I cannot with Liicke, assume that 
the law (ὁ νόμος) here means merely the command to circumcise, 
for, in my opinion, if this alone had been referred to, we should have 
had ἡ ἐντολή, the command, the term which designates the individ- 
ual declarations of the law. But ὁ νόμος here is the Mosaic law in 
relation to circumcision ; he who breaks one of its precepts breaks 
the whole law. Accordingly, the design in practising circumcision 
on the Sabbath, was that no higher law should be neglected for the 
sake of a lower. Thus Christ means to say: ‘I also do not neglect 
the strict observance of the Sabbath arbitrarily, but in order to fulfil 
the higher command of Jove.) By such a representation of the rea- 
sons of his conduct, the Lord now hoped to turn the judgment of 
his opponents from what was merely external (κατ᾽ ὄψιν == κατὰ τὴν 
σάρκα, viii. 15) to the essential features—the inward motive of the act, 
Ver. 25-27.—Some well-meaning citizens of Jerusalem (different 
from the inimical persons alluded to in ver. 19) wonder at the mute- 
ness of Christ’s enemies, and think the latter may have even taken 
him for the Messiah, which they probably were inclined to do, since 
their susceptible minds felt the power of the truth which spoke in 
the words and character of Christ. But outward and superficial 
views held them in fetters, and prevented them from entirely open- 
ing their hearts to Christ ; they thought that the origin of Christ 
the Messiah would be entirely unknown, whereas that of Jesus was 
known. Concerning this opinion of the Jews (which Scripture di- 
rectly contradicts, since it names even the birth-place of the Mes- 
siah), we have, in the rabbinical writings, no valid evidence,* The 
idea of the person from whom this notion originated, may have been 
perfectly correct, viz., that no one would know the eternal heavenly 
origin of the Messiah as the Son of God. (This is intimated in the 
Old Testament, Is, lili. 8, Micah v. 2; in the New Testament, Heb. 
vii. 3.) The untutored multitude, Hee misunderstood the idea, 
and referred the ignorance respecting the origin of the Messiah to 
his external advent. They may have thought, as the Marcionites 
did, that he would descend suddenly from heaven, although this 
forms a contradiction (not to be wondered at in connexion with such 
crude views) to the prevailing opinion that the Messiah would be a 
mere man, At all events the entire notion was merely a partial ὦ 


* Passages such as Justin M. dial. ο. Tryph. p. 226, 336, edit. Sylburg, to which appeal 
has been made, are not relevant to this question. The former only says, that the Messiah, 
until his anointing with the Spirit by Elias, would not be known either to others or te 
himself. Accordingly that passage has no reference at all to his earthly origin. The 
second passage says that the Messiah would at first be mistaken, and would not be rec 
ognized till after his manifestation in glory; this, therefore, like the other, has no connexes 
ion with the popular notion which John here mentions. 


Joun VII. 28-34. 435 


one, and not entertained by the whole nation. (Comp. Matth, ii. 
4, ff. 

"ei 28-30.—Liicke is certainly correct in maintaining that the 
following answer of the Saviour represents a fine stroke of irony : 
Jesus grants them that, in respect to his earthly origin, they know 
who he is, but all the more decidedly denies it as to his heavenly 
origin, when he says, “‘ Ye do not so much as know him who sent 
me ; how then can ye know my relation to him ?” This expression 
appears too strong, since the Jews still constantly worshipped the 
true God ; but their conception of God did not answer to the living 
nature of the Eternal: they had not the true God (Θεὸς ἀληθινός), 
but an inadequate and variously obscured notion of him. 

Here again, therefore, the signification of ὠληθινός is the strict 
one in which the term is employed by John ; it is not (like ἀληθής) 
opposed to the absolutely false, but to the relative, the imperfect. 
The idea of the Jews respecting God was not absolutely false, but 
at the same time it was not complete. Jesus here intends to con- 
trast the essential knowledge of God with a merely notional knowl- 
edge; the former alone qualifies us to recognize that which is 
Divine wherever it may be presented to our notice. These pointed 
accusations now excited all the acrimony of the Jews ; but so long 
as the hour fixed by the Father was not arrived, their rage against 
him led to no result. 

Ver. 31, 32—But as sin became more glaringly manifest, so the 
better characteristics were increasingly displayed ; many were seized 
by the power of the words and acts of Jesus, and believed. All the 
more zealously, however, did the Pharisaic leaders among the Jews 
endeavour to arrest his influence. 

Ver. 33, 34.—This induced the Redeemer to hint at his depart- 
ure, which would soon enough take place. Jesus makes use of very 
similar expressions vill. 21, ff. and refers back to the same xiii, 33. 
From the latter passage it is obvious that the words were directed 
to the Jews, and not probably to the believing disciples. There can 
be no doubt that εἰμί here, as ver. 86, is the correct reading, for εἶμι 
never occurs in the New Testament, and is evidently introduced 
here only as a parallel with ὑπάγω, Nor is there any ground at all 
for understanding εἰμί in the sense of venire ; on the contrary, the 
present tense is simply to be taken in the future signification. 
Most important, however, for the interpretation of this passage is 
the question, how should ζητεῖν, seek, be understood ? Grotius 
maintains the view that it designates hostile seeking, in the sense : 
“ye will then form plots against me in vain, I shall then be com- — 
pletely rescued from your power.” But this is not at all consistent 
with the words yet a little time I am with you (ἔτι μικρὸν χρόνον μεθ' 
ὑμῶν εἰμί), for had the Lord intended to convey the meaning : “ye 


436 Joun VII. 35, 36. 


cannot abridge the short time that I shall yet spend here,” this 
must have been otherwise expressed. Moreover, the parallel pas- 
sages (vill. 21, ff., xiii. 33) clearly indicate another sense of the 
passage. 

The words, xiii. 33, in particular, leave no doubt at all that 
“seek” is to be understood in the good sense, as seeking and long- 
ing after through ardent desire. Hence we get the following ele- 
vated sense of the words—one truly worthy of the Redeemer : 
“ Unwise men! ye know not what ye do, in rejecting me, your 
Deliverer. Soon enough will your foolish desire to see me removed 
from you be fulfilled ; I shall remain with you only a short time, 
and then return to my heavenly Father. Then ye will perceive 
your perfidy, and seek me with sorrow ; but ye will not find me, or 
be able to reach me.” The objection urged against this interpreta- 
tion, that the Jews had assuredly no wish to flee for safety into heaven, 
is very easily removed, if the pith of the thought be seized. To be 
able to come to Christ means not merely to be corporeally near him, 
but also to experience his power and his life spiritually. This is 
what the Redeemer here represents the Jews as one day desiring in 
vain. It cannot be objected that if this desire were a frwe one, 
Christ would satisfy it even in the case of the Jews, and that they 
might thus come to him even after his departure to the Father. 
For, according to the universal doctrine of the Bible, the hour of 
grace may be lost. To these persons whom Jesus addressed, the 
hour of gracious visitation was the present ; if they did not avail 
themselves of it, they could by no means recover that which was lost 
at any time they pleased ; but it would be with them as with Hsau, 
who found no place for repentance, though he sought it with tears, 
and therefore certainly exemplified the seeking. (Heb. xii. 17.) 

Ver. 35, 36.—The bystanders do not apprehend the ,:regnant 
meaning of Christ’s prophetic words ; in accordance with the exter- 
nal bias of their minds, they conjecture something external, and this 
not without a mixture of derisiou (comp. viii. 22). They suppose 
that he intends to turn from the Jews among whom his labours 
were so ineffectual, to the Gentiles, for the purpose of converting 
them. (Ἕλληνες, Greeks, are not Jews, among the Gentiles [Hel- 
lenists], but pars pro toto Gentiles in general ; it is only by under- 
standing the term thus, that due force is given to the antithesis 
between this and his supposed abandonment of Jerusalem. The 
signification of διασπορά is sufficiently determined by the following 
διδάσκειν τοὺς "EAAnvac; it here designates, not the διασπαρέντες 
themselves, but the place of their residence. Comp. 1 Pet.1.1; 
James i, 1.) 


Joun VII. 37. 437 


΄ 


§ 2. Discourses AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FEAST OF 
TABERNACLES, 


(John vii. 37; viii. 59.) 


Ver. 37.—In what has preceded (vii. 1-386), no considerable dis- 
courses have occurred in immediate connexion with the main pur- 
pose of the Evangelist. The paragraph has been occupied with 
historic preparations (so to speak) for what follows and completes 
the picture of the scene in which the Redeemer moved during this 
residence in Jerusalem. The same view may be taken of the verses 
vu. 40-52. But with vii. 37-39, with which vii. 12-59 is imme- 
diately connected, commences a large body of discourses, all of 
which appear to have been uttered on one day—the concluding day 
of the Feast of the Tabernacles. These are most intimately asso- 
ciated with the chief design of the Gospel, since they throw increased 
light upon the Redeemer himself and upon his ministry. The his- 
tory of the adulteress (vi. 53; viii. 11) evidently interrupts the 
unity of the discourses, and therefore our special critical, as well as 
exegetical consideration of it, is postponed to the conclusion of chap. 
viii. Of the Lord’s first discourse, in which he represents himself 
(similarly to the description in John iv.) as the water of life that 
satisfies all desire, John gives only a brief notice, adding an expla- 
nation (ver. 39) of his own. Doubtless Jesus pursued the thought 
further ; but this the Evangelist did not need td do, since the con- 
versation with the Samaritan woman involves all that appertains 
to the subject. Probably, however, the mention of water was 
here occasioned by an external cause, as at Jacob’s well. The 
last day of the Feast of Tubernacles, as the last feast-day of the 
year, was commenced with ceremonies of a very special character, 
on which account it was called the great day (ἡ μεγάλη). The gen- 
erally joyous character of the Feast on this day broke out into loud 
jubilation, particularly at the solemn moment when the priest, as 
was done on every day of this festival, brought forth in a golden 
vessel water drawn from the stream of Siloah, which flowed under 
the Temple-mountain, and ceremonially poured it upon the altar.” 


* Plutarch, Sympos. lib. iv. Opp. t. ii. p. 671, describes this custom, and calls it bacchic, 
because it was connected with the vintage, and wore a very joyous character. He says: 
Τῆς μεγίστης καὶ τελειοτάτης ἑορτῆς map’ αὐτοῖς ὁ καιρός ἐστι καὶ ὁ τρόπος Διονύσῳ προσή. 
κων" τὴν γὰρ λεγομένην νηστείαν ἀκμάζοντι τρυγητῷ τραπέζας τε προτίθενται παντοδαπῆς 
ὀπώρας, ὑπὸ σκηναῖς τε καθιᾶσιν, ἐκ κλημάτων μάλιστα καὶ κιττοῦ διαπεπλεγμέναις, καὶ τὴν 
προτέραν τῆς ἑορτῆς σκηνὴν ὀνομάζουσιν. ᾿᾽Ολέγαις δὲ ὕστερον ἡμέραις, ἄλλην ἑορτὴν οὐκ 
ἄν δι’ εἰνιγμώτων, ἀλλὰ ἄντικρυς Βάκχου καλουμένου τελοῦσιν. "ἔστι δὲ καὶ Kpat7po- 
φορία τις ἑορτὴ καὶ θυρσοφορία παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς, tv ἦ θύρσους ἔχοντες εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν εἰσίασιν, 
εἰσελθόντες δὲ ὅ. τι δρῶσιν οὐκ ἴσμεν. Eixdc δὲ Βακγείαν εἶναι τὰ ποιούμενα, καὶ vas 


438 Joun VII. 38. 


Then the words, Isa. xii. 3: “ With joy shall ye draw water out of 
the fountains of salvation” were sung, and thus expression was given 
to the symbolical meaning of this act, intimated ver. 39. (Comp. 
Winer’s Reallex. p. 403.) It was probably upon the occasion of this 
ceremony that the Saviour uttered the language before us, in which 
he represents his Spirit as water for eternal life. 

Ver. 38.—The Saviour now extols the virtue of this water: it 
not only allays thirst and invigorates, but renders the individual who 
partakes it, a living fountain (πιστεύειν is here equivalent to πίνειν, 
comp. vi. 35. We have already enlarged upon the idea, iv. 14). If 
Jesus here appeals to a passage of Scripture, yet we are not to sup- 
pose that he alludes to all those places where the knowledge of God 
is represented as water covering the land (as some expositors think 
is indicated by passages like Is. xi. 9, xliv. 8, lv. 1, lvii. 11), but 
rather that the reference is only to those (such as Joel iii. 18 ; Zech. 
xiv. 8 ; Ezek. xlvii. 1, 12) in which a reference is made to a stream 
issuing from the Temple-hill. 

The metaphor is evidently as follows: the Redeemer compares 
himself with the Temple, and represents himself and every believer 
as a living Temple ; as the fountain of Siloah poured forth its waters 
from the Temple-mountain, so also a stream of heavenly life issues 
from the Redeemer and from all those who have become like him. 
Gieseler (in a remark in Ullmann’s Studien, vol. 11. No. 1. p. 138) 
lays stress on the expression ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας, and thinks this indicates 
a reference to the circumstance that the water poured upon the altar 
by the priest was conducted from the recesses of the mountain into 
the brook Cedron, Although this may be too far-fetched, κοιλία 
stands, like Ἴὼ5 (Prov. xx. 27), for the interior generally. We may 
at most find in the expression a corporeal reference, and the sense 
would then be: ‘‘ the entire man, spirit, soul, and body, is purified 
by means of the water which I give him, and becomes himself a liv- 
ing fountain of blessing.” The flowing forth, and overflowing of 
the water to others, necessarily presupposes abundance in him from 
whom it issues, while in the overflowing the idea is presented in the 
fullest and strongest manner ; the Lord, who is full of grace, gives 
to the children of men a full, overflowing measure. (Luke vi. 38.) 
Luicke’s remarks, in opposition to the idea of the overflowing and 
pouring forth, are of no importance whatever; for the circumstance 
that John does not explain this reference in ver. 39 only proves that 
σάλπιγξι μικραῖς ὥσπερ’ Ἀργεῖοι τοῖς Διονυσίοις͵ ἀνακαλού μενοι τὸν Θεὸν χρῶνται, καὶ κιθαρί 
ζοντες ἕτεροι προσίασιν οὗς αὐτοὶ Λεύΐτας προσονομάζουσιν, εἴτε παρὰ τὴν Λύσιον, εἴτι 
μᾶλλον παρὰ τὸν "Εϑιον τῆς ἐπικλήσεως γεγενημένης. Comp. Joseph. Arch. xiii. 16 
Lakemacher, observ. sacr. Lib. i. p. 18-78, treats at large upon this usage, but he is mis 
taken in thinking that the Jews derived these customs from the bacchic rites of the 


Greeks: the hostile opposition between Jews and Pagans would not have perm.tted this 
(Comp. Lundius jud. heiligth. p. 1053, ff.) 


Joun VII. 39. 439 


it was not his purpose to make every allusion in the words of the 
Lord prominent. * 

Ver. 39.—According to his custom, the Evangelist accompanies 
this saying of the Lord “by an ie eee : the living water is, in 
his view, the spirit, which believers were about to receive, and which, 
in the following words, he designates more precisely as the ἅγιον, 
Simple as this thought is,* the conclusion of the verse is, on the 
other hand, pregnant with meaning, for, according to it, this Spirit 
was not yet there (οὔπω ἦν), and that because Christ was not yet 
glorified. These ideas are, in a doctrinal point of view, of the high- 
est importance. (Compare the hints on Luke 1.15, 35.) In the 
first place, that οὔπω ἣν, was not yet, has no reference, to existence, 
is self-evident ; for the Holy Spirit is to be conceived of as eternal, 
just as much as the Father and the Son. In order to obviate such a 
mistake, in many manuscripts additions are made as ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς, ds- 
δομένον, δοθέν (Lachmann, without sufficient reason, merely on the 
authority of the Codex B., has received the reading δεδομένον into 
the text)—expressions intended to designate the relation of the 
Holy Spirit to the disciples. The same thing is also plainly indicated 
by the concluding words, in which the Son’s being glorified is men- 
tioned, not merely asa period, but as a mediative and procuring 
cause of the communication of the Spirit. The glorification of 
Christ (comp. the particulars on xiii, 51) of course respects his 
humanity, which, through the power of the indwelling Deity, was 
spiritualized and deified. This process does not appear to have been 
completed till the ascension ; hence it was not till after this that 
the fulness of the Spirit was poured out upon the apostles and the 
first believers.f In perfect harmony with this is the declaration 

* The objections urged by Liicke (in loco) against John’s interpretation appear to 
m4 of no consequence. He thinks that the living water, with which the Lord compares 
himself, means eternal life, not the Spirit, since John was not made acquainted with this 
till after the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. But eternal life is only a consequence of the 
Spirit ; the principle imparted by Christ is always the Spirit, even where merely its effect 
is mentioned. The use of the simile of outpouring (Acts x. 45; Rom. v. 5; Tit. iii. 6), 
which is not suited to fire, satisfactorily shews that in the N. T. πνεῦμα is frequently 
compared with water, which Licke denies. Moreover, according to the declaration of 
Jonn, it is not needful to take ῥεύσουσι, shall flow, as an absolute future, for Jesus. even 
before the Pentecost, imparted his Spirit to those who believed in him (John xx. 22); the 
outpouring of the Spirit is mentioned only as the highest point of his manifestation. It is 
also to be remarked that the idea of an outpouring of the Spirit, according to passages 
such as Joel ili. 1 (in the English ii. 23—Tr.); Isaiah xxxii. 15, xliv. 83; Ezek, xxxvi. 
25, xxxix. 29, was very familiar to all Jews. (On this subject comp. Kling’s remarks in 
opposition to Liicke, loc. cit. p. 132, ff.) 

+ As the Son wrought in humanity long before his incarnation, so also the Spirit was 
manifested long before his outpouring. But as the fullness of the life belonging to the 
Son was not revealed until his incarnation, so also the Spirit was not displayed in all his 
power tillthe outpouring at Pentecost. The outpouring of the Spirit, therefore, is the 


same point in his development as the incarnation in the development of the Son. 
Concerning the inearnation of the Spirit in a distinct personality, traces of whick 


440 Joun VII. 39. 


also of the Lord, xvi. 7, ἐὰν μὴ ἀπέλθω͵ ὁ παράκλητος οὐκ ἐλεύσεται πρὸς 
ὑμᾶς, unless I go away, the Comforter, etc., in that his death and the 
glorification connected with it were the conditions of the impartation 
of the Spirit. Hence these words evidently involve the idea that 
the manifestation of the Deity in man takes place by degrees, and is 
conditional upon the gradual perfection of those in whom the mani- 
festation is made. The Spirit of God built for himself within. Mary 
the holy Temple of the Lord’s body, that he might dwell in it as a 
pure immaculate medium ; and it was by the power of this indwell- 
ing Divine Spirit that the Lord’s body gradually became so glorified 
that the highest manifestation of Deity—the Holy Spirit—could be 
poured forth from him upon mankind, like an all-quickening and 
sanctifying stream. In constant union with this influence of the 
Holy Spirit, the power of the Lord’s glorified humanity was so dis- 
played, that he communicated to his followers not merely his Spirit, 
but also his flesh and blood, rendering them in all respects conformed 
to himself—bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh (Ephes. v. 30 ; 
Phil, ii. 21). 

We may now determine the manner in which we are to regard 
the operations of the Holy Spirit before the glorification of the Lord, 
with respect to those who lived under the New Testament. Accord- 
ing to 2 Pet. i. 21, we find the Holy Spirit at work in the ministry 
of the Old Testament prophets, and the New Testament speaks of 
the agency of the same Spirit before the glorification, in John the 
Baptist, as well as in the physical creation of Jesus. (Comp. the 
remarks on Lukei. 15, 35.*) The express mention, however, of the 
Holy Spirit in the Old Testament occurs only in Psalm li. 11; 
Isaiah lxiii. 10; and the whole of the Old Testament shews that | 
the idea of it in the minds of enlightened men, under that dispensa- 
tion, was but very obscure. (In the Apocrypha the term πνεῦμα 
ἅγιον occurs, Wisd. Sol. 1, 5, ix. 17.) It might indeed be said that the 
entire difference in the operations of the Holy Spirit under the Old 
and under the New Testament consisted in this—that under the latter 
economy it is manifested in greater copiousness, that it is displayed 
in more extraordinary gifts, and more various forms of operation (1 
Cor. xii. 7, ff.) and that it acts more permanently, while under the Old 
Testament its operations appear variable and transitory. In that case, 
however, it would not be anything essentialy new that was given in 
the New Testament, but merely the Old Testament heightened ; and 
hence this statement of the matter, although containing poiuts 


doctrine occur in several sects, Holy Scripture knows nothing. (Comp. the observations oa 
Acts xix, 2.) 

* The idea expressed by Olshausen, in his Commentary on those passages, is that the 
term πνεῦμα ἅγιον, as employed there, designates the Divine essence in general, which 
according to its nature is holy. He thinks it is not there to be taken as meaning liter: 
ally the third Person in the Godhead.—Tr. 


Joun VII. 40-49, 441 


which cannot be overlooked are not entirely satisfactory, but defect- 
ive in some essential points. For in so far as the Deity, as such, is 
spirit and is holy, it cannot be denied that the Holy Spirit also 
wrought in the Old Testament, as is indicated also by the formule, 
“God spake” and ‘‘ the Spirit came upon the prophets,” which oc- 
cur in instances almost innumerable ; and further, according to the 
necessary unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit, in consequence of 
which, neither acts without the others, the action of the Holy Spirit 
must always be connected with the operations of God in the Old 
Testament ; nevertheless the usus loquendi of Scripture and the in- 
ternal relation of the Persons of the Trinity itself justify us in dis- 
tinguishing between the operations of the Father, of, the Son, and 
of the Holy Spirit, as different Persons in the Divine essence ; and 
in relation to this distinction we must say that the ministry of the 
Holy Spirit commences with the glorification of Jesus, and the out- 
pouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. Hence there is some truth in 
the view which has often presented itself in the church respecting 
particular economies of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit. The acts of Deity under the Old Testament were those of 
the Son; those of the Holy Spirit commence with the Pentecost. 
This is indicated especially by the last great discourses of the Lord 
concerning the Holy Spirit (comp. the remarks on John xvi. 7), in 
which also the departure of Jesus is represented as the necessary 
condition of the Spirit’s manifestation, It might be said that until 
the glorification of Jesus the Holy Spirit operated as ἐνδιάθετον, and 
after this as προφορικόν. The proper work of the Holy Spirit is re- 
generation, and the entire creative agency of God in the souls of 
men ; accordingly the new birth essentially belongs to the New 
Testament, the specific effects of the Holy Spirit being displayed 
first under his own economy. (Comp. the Comm, on Matth. xi. 11.)* 

Ver. 40-43.—The demeanour of Jesus, the ardour of his speech, 
and the power of the Spirit which proceeds from him, powerfully 
affect many of his hearers ; they perceive something great in him, 
(Concerning ὁ προφήτης, comp. the observations on John 1. 21.) But 
they stumble at the circumstance that (according to their erroneous 
opinion) he was not born in Bethlehem. Without making thorough 
inquiry, they allow this external circumstance to mislead them in 
respect to the impression made upon their hearts, and thus they be- 
tray their shallowness and indolence. 

Ver. 44-49.—In those who were less susceptible of impressions 
from the truth, the opposite of this is now presented ; they desire 


* De Wette here as usual resorts to dogmatism. He calls my exposition subtle and 
erroneous. Instead of proving this, he makes the monstrous assertion that “ the idea of 
the Holy Spirit as a Person is more plainly implied in the O. T. than tha( of the Son ag 
such.” (1?) 


442 Joun VII. 50-52. 


to lay hands on the Holy One or God, but are restrained by an in- 
visible power. Meanwhile this feeling amongst a portion of the 
people encourages the Sanhedrim to an attempt at arresting him 
officially ; officers from the Temple (ὑπηρέται) are sent to bring him 
before this tribunal. These men, however, uncultivated indeed, 
but of simple mind, accessible to the power of the truth, and not 
entangled in error through self-interest and sophistry, are too 
powerfully wrought upon by the word of the Lord ; they return 
without executing their commission. Doubtless these persons were 
incapable of apprehending the thoughts of Jesus, but the impres- 
sion of his personal character overcame them.* To this powerful, 
although, at the same time, purely subjective conviction, the arro- 
gant Sanhedrists oppose a merely external circumstance. ‘“ No 
man of rank or learning believes in Jesus, therefore they might con- 
clude that there was nothing superior in him.” ‘The peculiar char- 
acter of Pharisaism, which passed over to the more recent Rabbin- 
ism, is the over-valuation of what is outward, of the inculcated form 
of the knowledge of the law, which but too often shews itself with- 
out that true love and desire for Divine things by which they are 
best apprehended. With this haughty, excessive estimation of self, 
is associated a shocking contempt of others ; the people who are not 
formed in the rabbinical mould are called ἐπικατάρατοι, accursed, as 
those who, being without the knowledge of God, are delivered over 
to destruction. (The Rabbins abuse the uneducated with the ap- 
pellation yrs7 ©2, and even yp¥, ἡ. 6.. abomination, while, on the con- 
trary, they call themselves πὰρ 62. Comp. Lightfoot on the pas- 
sage.) 

Ver. 50-52.—Probably the rebuke was administered to the offi- 
cers of the Temple during a sitting of the Sanhedrim, in which it 
was intended immediately to condemn Jesus. On this account 
Nicodemus, whose heart was indissolubly bound to the Lord by the 
conversation held with him at night, ventures to speak openly 
in his favour. He reminds the assembly of the law of Moses 
that no one was to be condemned unheard. (Comp. passages such 
as Exod, xxiii. 1; Deut. i. 16,17 ; xix. 15.—With. ἀκούσῃ, κρίτης is 
to be supplied.) According to ver. 51, however, we are not to sup- 
pose a decree on the part of the Sanhedrim to arrest Jesus ; in this 
case they could not have been thus censured, and Jesus would not 
have withdrawn himself, as was shewn by his conduct at the end of 
his life. The affair is rather to be regarded as a private enterprise 
of some Pharisees who wished not to apprehend him, but to have 
him put to death without a hearing. These men endeavour to 
avert the disagreeable truth by a derisive jest ; they reproach Nico- 


* Tiere wo may well apply the fine saying: cujus vita fulgur est, ejus verba sunt 
tonitrua. 


Joun VIII. 12. 443 


demus himself as a Galilean, and tell him that no prophet comes 
out of this half-pagan land. This assertion was false, for both 
Jonah and Elias* were from Galilee. But Bretschneider} evidently 
goes too far in deducing from it the spuriousness of the Gospel, be- 
cause he thinks it inconceivable that the true John should attribute 
such an error to the Sanhedrists, who were so accurately acquainted 
with the Scripture, for in the heat of controversy it might easily 
happen that such a minute historical circumstance should be over- 
looked. 

Here the following history of the adulteress obviously interrupts 
the connexion. The passage viii. 12 (comp. with this viii. 21, 30, 
59) proves that the discourse commenced vii. 37 should be continued; 
its unity also is clearly indicated by the connexion of the ideas, while 
vill. 20, 59 shew that the whole took place in the Temple. The 
paragraph vii. 40-52, as we have already remarked, is merely an in- 
tervening description of the circumstances occurring at the time 
when the discourse was delivered. In the passage vii. 53, on the 
contrary, we find the altogether foreign statement : ‘‘ Hach went to 
his own house,” etc., (ἐπορεύθη ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἷκον αὑτοῦ, Ἰησοῦς δὲ 
ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν), with which viil. 59 is utterly incom- 
patible, for, according to the latter, as vii. 87, Jesus again teaches 
in the Temple. Being convinced upon other grounds also that the 
history of the adulteress is spurious, I have preferred postponing the 
closer consideration of this till after the interpretation of the entire 
section, in which it is unsuitably inserted—(Comp. the particulars 
after viii. 59.) 

Chap. viii. 12—The words wherein the Redeemer represents 
himself as the light of the world (comp. 1. 4), which guides all who 
follow it into the right path of life, are evidently parallel with the 
passage vil. 837, where Christ describes himself as the water of life. 
He obviously endeavours to draw the attention of the people to 
himself, and win them for the great end of his mission. For this 
reason he presents himself to them as the possessor of all the powers 
of the higher life, who can satisfy every want and every desire. 
Liicke, mistaking this common bond between the discourses, thinks 
they must be regarded as separated by a greater interval. He says 
that πάλιν, again, may be understood as indicating also a later dis- 
course detached from the previous one by the space of several days, 
and that Jesus appears to have been dealing at one time (vii. 40) 
with the people, at another (viii. 18) with the Pharisees, at another 
(viii, 22) with the Jews, at another (viii. 30) partly with believers 
and partly with unbelievers, But this variety of relations is very 

* Whether Nahum also was from Galilee is not to be determined, on account of the 


uncertain situation of his birth-place, Elkosh. 
+ Comp. probab. de evang. Johannis indole et origine, p. 99, seq, 


444 Joun VIII. 13, 14. 


simply explained on the hypothesis that the Lord spoke first with 
this and then with that party in the mixed concourse ; while the 
supposition that the Saviour uttered this saying also on the con- 
cluding day of the Feast of the Tabernacles is pre-eminently fa- 
voured by the fact, that an external circumstance in the ritual of 
the feast will explain why Jesus compares himself with light, as he 
formerly did with water. In the court of the women there stood 
two colossal candlesticks decorated with a multitude of lamps ; to- 
wards evening, these were lighted up, and the people danced around 
them with great rejoicing.* This usage also had a symbolical signi- 
ficance (comp. Zech. xiv. 7, 16); Jerusalem was thus to be repre- 
sented as the city that enlightened the world, and the light 
symbolized the element of joy and pleasure. Now nothing is more 
appropriate than that the Lord, in allusion to these candlesticks 
which were then about to be lit up (for after the lighting, the jubi- 
lation of the multitude would not have permitted him to discourse), 
should say: “1 am the true Light of the world—all that is sym- 
bolically represented in the sacred rites of the Temple, is actually 
fulfilled in me!” Liicke also thinks it likely that Jesus connected 
his discourse with something external, but he is of opinion, with 
Kuinoel and Dr, Paulus, that the candlesticks were lit up only on 
the first day. On the one hand, however, it certainly is probable 
that as the drawing of the water took place every day during the 
feast, the illumination also was repeated ; while on the other, it is 
sufficient to admit that the colossal candlesticks remained there, and 
that Jesus in his address alluded to them. 

Ver. 18, 14—In reply to the declaration of Jesus concerning 
himself, the Pharisees say that his witness is not true, because he 
testifies of himself ; had they said that, being a testimony respect- 
ing himself, it was not valid to them, the remark would have been 
tolerable ; but in the present form it contained an evident false- 
hood. Hence the Lord thinks proper first to maintain against these 
daring sinners the sublime elevation of his position, and only sub- 
sequently, as at chap. v. 31, to condescend to them. He declares 
that his witness is trwe, for it results from the most absolute knowl- 
edge, in which they are altogether wanting. If ye be taken in the 
wider signification, as referable, not only to the individuals who had 
spoken, but to men in general, then the words ὑμεῖς dé οὐκ οἴδατε, 
k. τ. 4., but ye know not, etc., at the same time contain the reasons 
why no man whatever bore testimony of him ; for his origin in God 
(πόθεν ἦλθον), and his return to God (ποῦ ὑπάγω), as Divine actions, 
surpass everything human ; they can be perceived only through the 
reception of Divine influences into the mind.+ 

* Comp. Lundius jiid. Heiligth, p. 1055, ff. 

} The comparison with φῶς corresponds very well with these words, for as nothing 


Joun VIII. 15-20, 445 


Ver. 15, 16.—In perfect harmony with this is the observation 
that the Pharisees judge according to that which is external (κατὰ 
τὴν σάρκα, comp. vii. 24), because they are not capable of discerning 
the interior. But the following words, ‘I judge no one” (ἐγὼ οὐ 
κρίνω οὐδένα) appear to depart from the connexion. They are best 
understood as an incidental remark, intended to shew the aggravated 
character of their sin, in this sense: “I teach peacefully, and mis- 
construe no one, but ye assail me with your sentences of condemna- 
tion ; if, however, ye in this manner oblige me to judge, I pass a 
true sentence, for I judge in the strength of God.” (Comp. the 
Comm. on John iii. 17.) 

Ver, 17-20.—This' mention of the Saviour’s essential unity with 
the Father leads him, just as in v. 82, to represent the Father as 
* the witness to himself, and (which is remarkable) he refers in this 
instance to the law of the Old Testament, Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15. 
(The words are quoted only in their general sense, and from mem- 
ory ; in the Hebrew, as also in the LX X., they run quite differently.) 
Now, in the first place, it is striking that he should say : δύο ἄνθρωποι, 
two men, though the expression ἄνθρωπος is here to be taken only in 
the signification of “personality.” In the second place, it appears 
surely that there is only one witness, viz., the Father, the testimony 
being on behalf of Christ. But the Redeemer evidently views his 
Divine nature in its distinction from its human existence; the 
Father and the Son are the heavenly witnesses, and we may say, 
the Holy Spirit also, as the third witness, testifies to the human ap- 
pearance which they saw before them. (Thus the passage is par- 
allel with the celebrated verse, 1 John v. 7, where, indeed, the reading 
is erroneous, but nevertheless three heavenly witnesses are to be 
conceived of, as standing in contrast with the three earthly.) The 
materializing Jews do not understand the words of Christ, but think 
of a corporeal father, and are therefore repelled by the Lord with 
the disclosure of their entire ignorance concerning Divine things, 
They merely possessed notions respecting God and Divine things, 
and made these notions the objects of their worship ; but the 
ability to discern the essence of the Divine was in them altogether 
extinct. 

At the conclusion it is added, by way of information as to the 
locality, that all this was spoken in the Temple (vii. 87), near the 
γαζοφυλάκιον, treasury. Here, doubtiess, reference was made to the 
chests in which contributions for the Temple were collected. There 
were thirteen of them ; on account of their shape they were called 


can manifest light, because light is itself the all-manifesting element, so that which is 
Divine is itself its only witness. On this point Augustine finely remarks; lumen et alia 
demonstrat, et se ipsum; testimonium sibi perhibet lux, aperit sanos oculos et sibi ipsa 
testis est. 


446 . Joun VIII, 21-24. 


trumpets (ntye's); they stood in the court of the women, just where 
the great candlesticks were situated, from which, as we have seen, 
Jesus took occasion to represent himself as the light of the world. 
The circumstance that Jesus taught publicly in the Temple, and 
yet no one could lay hands on him, forms a fine contrast with the 
rage of his enemies, The hand of God protected the Beloved until 
the hour of the great sacrifice. 

Ver. 21, 22.—Since all is closely connected up to ver. 59, we heme 
abundant reason for understanding πάλιν, again, here ae as rela- 
ting to the same day, thus: “after a while Jesus began again,” ete. 
'Yndyw, I go, obviously relates to the same thing as the Redeemer 
spoke of, viii. 14. Concerning the thoughts themselves in these 
verses, we have already said as much as is needful in the exposition 
of vii. 34, ff; the only thing peculiar to our passage is presented 
by the words: “and ye shall die in your sin” (καὶ ἐν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ 
ὑμῶν ἀποθανεῖσθε). They evidently indicate that seek is to be under- 
stood as meaning to seek through desire ; while the observations on 
vii, 34 clearly shew that the Saviour might weil say: “at a future 
time ye will implore my aid, but nevertheless ye will die in your 
sin,” because they had known the time of their visitation, and yet 
had not heeded it.* Here again, as vii. 35, the Jews make a per- 
verted interpretation of the words of Jesus, which in addition to the 
perversion, involves a bitter reproach, because the Jews regarded 
suicide as a crime that inevitably led to hell. Origen thought this 
view of the matter supposed too much malice, and hence it was his 
opinion that the Jews alluded to a tradition, according to which it 
was expected that the Messiah would die in a more godlike manner 
(θειότερον) than the ordinary one, viz., that he would as it were put 
himself to death. But of such a tradition there is nowhere any 
trace. (Comp. the details on this subject in Liicke’s Comm. on the 
passage. ) 

Faber conjectures ἀποξενοῖ instead of ἀποκτενεῖ, so that the 
answer would be parallel with that given vii. 36 ; but this conjec- 
ture is not confirmed by manuscripts. It is true that if the words 
be understood as a jest, the meaning is impudent and malicious, 
but we can more easily suppose how a jester might be induced to 
utter it. 

Ver, 23, 24——With quiet perspicuity, Christ, in opposition to 
their scorn, unfolds the entire disparity between his position and 
that of his hearers. The passage iii. 31 is similar, where, instead 
of ἐκ τοῦ κόσιιου τούτου, of this world,t we find ἐκ τῆς γῆς, of the 


* We are not to suppose a confusion of ἐν and διά in the sentence ἐν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ὑμῶν 
ἀποθανεῖσθε ; the sense is simply that they would die without being delivered ‘rom their 
sins—in a state of bondage to them. 

¢ Concerning κόσμος οὗτος comp. the remarks on John xii. 31. 


Joun VIII. 25, 26. . 447 


earth. In ours, however, as is not the case in ii, 31, the expres- 
sion designates, not merely the origin, but also the degraded carnal 
disposition. This prevented the Jews from believing in Jesus, be- 
cause his holy nature was exactly contrary to their unholy. (Eyé 
εἰμι scil, ὁ Χριστός, the one, great, desired Prophet = the Heb. 
RIT DR, 

Ver. 25, 26.—Here the meaning is obscure. In the first place, 
the words “ who art thou ?”(od τίς ef;) contain a question full of in- 
solence, as Tholuck expresses himself, and of malevolent ridicule—- 
“Whom dost thou suppose thyself to be ? Dost thou fancy thyself 
the Messiah ?” Luther says naively, “ Oh yes, what thou sayest 
must be true; who art thou, good Master, Jesus ?” Liicke, like 
Luther, in the oldest edition, translates : ‘‘ Who art thou then ? 
and Jesus said: Just that which I have already told you.” But 
the question, thus understood, would seem to have arisen from 
actual want of instruction ; and this is not at all consistent with 
- ver. 26, 

In the second place, greater difficulty is presented by the an- 
swer of Christ. As to the text itself, it is a question whether 4, te 
or ὅτι is to be read, and whether after λαλῶ ὑμῖν a full stop or a 
comma is to be placed. The reading 6, τε is, according to all criti- 
cal authorities, to be preferred. The other reading arose from igno- 
rance, and perhaps also from the explanation of the passage 
propounded by Augustine, according to which, τὴν ἀρχήν is taken 
as an accusative in the signification of principium, and the sense is 
this: ‘‘ Regard me as the Origin, 7. 6. the Author of all things, be- 
cause I speak with you, ὦ. 6. I have condescended to you.” 

But the incorrectness of this view is beyond all doubt; τὴν 
ἀρχήν is certainly to be taken adverbially, and hence also the read- 
ing ὅτι is inapplicable. As regards the connexion with ver. 26, all 
modern expositors agree in opposing it ; they differ from one another 
merely in the view taken of τὴν ἀρχήν. The interpretation “ from 
the beginning,” =d7’ ἀρχῆς, maintained by Tholuck, is indeed sup- 
ported, so far as the terms are concerned, by passages in the Sep- 
tuagint, such as Gen. xlii. 18, 20 (where in the Hebrew the 
expression is mbhnz); but if the sense of the words were “ that 
which I said even at the beginning” (‘‘ of my ministry” is the best 
addition that can be made), then it would be necessary to change 
their order, and the sentence must run: 6, te καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὑμῖν 
λαλῶ. Besides which, no instance is recorded in which the Lord 
said this at the beginning of his ministry. Liicke, therefore, with 
Erasmus, Wolf, Kuinoel, and Tittman, takes τὴν ἀρχήν in the sig- 
nification of ὅλως, omnino, profecto, like ἀμήν, so that the meaning 
of the words is this: “truly, I am no other (ἐγώ εἰμι supplied) than 
T teil you.” But we feel that thus the «af(which Liicke translates 


448 Joun VIII. 27-29. 


‘without reserve”) is wholly inappropriate ; and moreover, if this 
rendering be adopted, we must read ἐλάλησα instead of λαλῶ. In 
the interpretation of this difficult passage, I agree with Dr. Paulus 
in preferring the signification “ first.”* This view involves no 
grammatical difficulty whatever: the accusative absolute here pre- 
sents the expression in its original sense, from which the other sig- 
nification, “‘ truly,” is derived. Τὴν ἀρχήν cannot have this latter 
meaning except so far as that which is first is also frequently most 
important ; on the other hand, “ first,” “in the first place,” is its 
most natural sense. Dr. Paulus, however, takes ver. 25 in entire 
separation from ver. 26, and thus injures the interpretation of the 
passage. He translates: “in the first place, I am that which I 
even now tell you, 7. 6. your admonisher. In the second place, I 
have also yet much to say to you, etc.” In this way a difficult 
ellipsis arises, and the discourse is extremely obscure. But, if vers. 
25 and 26 are united, the connexion of the whole is simple, and 
then the sense is this: “ first I have, as I plainly tell you, much to 
say to you in the way of censure and rebuke ; and thus I am your 
serious admonisher.” It is only according to this view of the pas- 
sage, which is indicated in several codices by the blending of the 
two verses, that καί attains its proper signification. The circum- 
stance that no “ secondly” follows “ jirst,” is founded in the meaning 
of the whole argumentation ; for the answer is intended to be one 
of rebuke, and the expression ‘‘ first” awakens the idea that Jesus, 
if he had thought proper, could have said much more to them. 
Hence he adds, by way of example, that his judgment is perfectly 
true, because it is that of Deity itself, though effected through the 
Son. (Concerning the hearing of the Father’s voice, compare the 
parallel see v. 19 ; and respecting the judgment of the Son, consult 
the remarks on iii. 17.) 

Ver. 27-29.—In accordance with the remark of the Evangelist 
that the Jews again did not apprehend the meaning of the words of 
Christ, this paragraph of the Lord’s discourse is wound up with his 
declaration, that they would recognize him in his peculiar elevation, 
when they had lifted him up. The passages iii. 14, and xii, 32, 33, 
according to the authentic interpretation of their author, leave no 
doubt concerning the import of the Saviour’s words. The elevation 
of Jesus on the cross, the deepest point of his humiliation, was at 
the same time the commencement of the most copious display of 
the fulness of the Spirit in him, and of the acknowledgment of him 

* The result of the investigation into this passage instituted by De Wette (comp. 
Stud. and Kritiken, 1834, No. 4) isthat the words mean “from the beginning I am that 
which I tell you.” In an extraordinary manner, however, he takes “ from the beginning” 
as equivalent to ‘beyond all things” or “assuredly,” although it refers only to the be 


ginning, and cannot mean anything else. The separation of ver. 25 and 26, which De 
Wette also maintains, is quite erroneous. 


Joun VIII. 30-32. 449 


by many, even among the Jews. Especially many of those who 
had already received strong impressions from the truth, but were 
not in a position to set themselves free from various prejudices, 
after the perfection of the Lord, might be overcome by the power 
of the Holy Spirit. The Redeemer again connects the necessity of 
recognizing him with the truth that in him nothing of his own, in 
detachment from Deity, is presented, but rather the pure expression 
of the Divine will itself, which nothing can withstand. Concerning 
the words οὐκ ἀφῆκέ pe μόνον ὁ πατήρ, the father hath not left me 
alone, which also occur John xvi. 32, comp, the remarks on Matth. 
xxvii. 46. 

It need only be added that the words, because I always do the 
things that please him (ὅτι ἐγὼ τὰ ἀρεστὰ αὐτῷ ποιῶ πάντοτε), do not: 
furnish the reason of the intimate union of essence between Father 
and Son, as if the Father never left the Son, because the Son always 
did his will ; this would argue merely a moral union, which would 
depend upon the fidelity of the Son. On the contrary, the fidelity 
of the Son was the consequence of the oneness of essence ; in Christ 
an impossibility of being unfaithful existed in his higher nature. 
Hence because I always, etc., is to be understood as implying 
the visible expression of the internal invisible consubstantiality 
between Father and Son, so that the passage must be taken thus: 
‘the Father has never left me yet, for ye see I constantly do that. 
which is pleasing to him, and no one among you can convict me of 
ὃ sin.” 

Ver, 80-32.%—By the words ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος, as he spake 
this, the sequel is immediately connected with that which precedes, 
Among the hearers many believed in him, and to these in particular 
Jesus addressed himself. The following verses express new and ex- 
alted ideas concerning bondage and freedom, the children of God 
and those of the Devil. In the first place, however, it is remarkable 
that this discourse should be held with persons who believed, and 
yet that Jesus reproaches them with a desire to kill him (ver 37 
and 40), and even calls them (ver. 44) children of the Devil. But 
the term believe, here applied to the hearers of Christ, is to be un- 
derstood as in John ii, 23-25, vii. 40, viz., as designating a certain 
credit given to that which the Redeemer might be in accordance 
with their own views, but a credit which could be associated (as in 
the case of Judas) with great corruption of heart, and according to 
the words of the Lord, was so associated. Still, strong as are the 
accusations of Christ against them, it is by no means necessary to 
suppose that they had formed the definite and determined purpose 
to kill Jesus, but merely that the general sinful element predom- 
inated in them, This very element, indeed, may have led them to 


* Comp. Kling in the Studien, 1836, No. 8, p. 661, ff, on the section John viii. 30-46, 
Vou. I1.—29 


450 Joun VIII. 30-82. 


acknowledge the Messiah in the person of Christ, since they hoped 
that through him their vain projects would be fulfilled ; but as soon 
as Jesus shewed himself to them as one who would by no means 
flatter their vanity, but would rebuke it, the apparent good-will de- 
generated into hatred ; that diabolic element (the parent of murder) 
forced itself into prominence, and at once brought forth its fruit in 
appropiate circumstances (vill. 59.) 

In the second place, in this discourse again (as chap. vi.) it ap- 
pears objectionable that the Lord should, as it were, irritate his 
hearers by the pungency of his remarks, in which he represents 
them as slaves and children of the Devil ; but in the present case, 
as in the former, this conduct on the part of Jesus properly belongs 
to his wise mode of instruction. It was no part of the Saviour’s pur- 
pose to keep the people in good humour, and partly attract them to 
himself by means of compliances; on the contrary, he wished to 
dart into their souls the word of God, which penetrates through joint 
and marrow (Heb. iv. 12), that he might disclose to them the con- 
cealed heinousness of sin, and truly deliver them from it. In the 
case of the sincere this succeeded, and he thus bound them eter- 
nally to himself ; but those who were not upright, as soon as they 
experienced his rigour, turned away from him, and their apparent 
affection was turned into bitter hatred. The impurity of the 
persons whom Jesus here addressed is at once indicated by the 
words (ver. 31) : ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μου ἐστέ, ye are truly my disciples. 
For, according to the usus loquendi of John (comp. i. 9), these 
words cannot mean, “‘ ye are not yet perfected disciples,” but their 
sense must be, “‘ ye are not sincere upright disciples ; if, however, 
ye remain in my word ye may become 80, since it will lead you to 
the consciousness of your depravity.” (Accordingly ἀληθῶς is not 
to be interchanged with ἀληθινῶς.) The only difficulty, in this case, 
is that ‘remaining in the word” (μένεεν ἐν τῷ AGYw), presupposes 
being in it, and how can this be predicated of the insincere ? The 
word of Christ, who is the original word (the Logos, i. 1), com- 
pletely partakes his nature ; his word 7s Divine, and operates ina 
Divine manner ; as living power it penetrates into the depth of the 
heart, and that not merely in the pure, but also in the impure ; in 
the former it produces consolation and invigoration, to the latter it 
administers rebuke. It may therefore be said that the words elvar 
ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐμῷ, to be in my word, or inversely, λόγος ἐμός ἐστι ἐν τινί, 
my word is in any one, are applicable even to the most depraved 
person,* when he experiences the power of God even against his 
will ; but his gaining salvation from the word of God depends en- 


* To be entirely free from the word of God, would be a predicate of the devilish. 
Even in the most degraded man, the voice of the Lord still speaks by the reproaches of 
conscience. 


Joun VIII. 33, 34. 451 


tirely on his remaining. The depraved man seeks to get rid of the 
troublesome admonisher as soon as possible, and drives the Spirit of 
God away from himself; but he who is sincere endures the correc- 
tion in penitence and humility, and thus his soul is restored. Ac- 
cordingly it becomes evident that the association of remaining in 
the word with knowing the truth is quite psychologically correct ; 
for the power of the word is received only in faith, and every man 
as a sinful being, according to the degree of impurity that is in him, 
is the subject of a variety of feelings which contend against grace ; 
—the result of which is that with him now this, and now that in 
the ways of God, is not right ; but if he persevere, the entire work 
of God gradually becomes unfolded in his soul with perfect clearness, 
and in this little world he beholds, as in a mirror, the universe in 
its most essential relations, so that faith gives birth to knowledge. 
The truth itself, however (comp. the remarks oni. 14), which the 
true γνωστικός possesses not merely as a system of ideas,* but in its 
full reality, calls forth another new condition, that of freedom (éAev- 
Oepia), to the development of which the sequel conducts us. But 
the Son of God himself is the truth in its essential reality, and hence 
also ver. 36, the bestowment of freedom is ascribed to the Son, who 
is the truth itself, as he is the life itself. 

Ver. 33, 34—The sad political state of the Jews, in connexion 
with that lively consciousness of their elevated vocation which ob- 
tained among the people, had awakened a fanatic strife after free- 
dom, and this was displayed, during the contests with the Romans, 
in horrible scenes. Instead of taking their oppressed condition 
humbly from the hand of God as a punishment of their sins, they 
daringly endeavoured, in opposition to God, to win by force, an ex- 
ternal freedom. Nothing, therefore, was more intolerable to them 
than to be considered the slaves of men ; in their longing after the 
Messiah, they were beguiled especially by the hope that this Desired 
One would make them the lords of the world. Hence it must have 
surprised them very much, that Jesus, whom they were disposed to 
regard as the Messiah, treated them as slaves. They at once supposed 
that he referred to an external bondage, and adduced their noble 
origin from Abraham. The Lord, therefore, conducts them more 
deeply into the idea of freedom, and to this end describes its oppo- 
site, viz., slavery. Sin (dyaeria), is the predominating element in 
spiritual slavery, and practising sin (ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν) is at once 
its consequence, and the sign by which tt is betrayed. Accordingly, 
he who is truly free (ὄντως ἐλεύθερος), appears entirely freed from 
the control of sin, The reading τῆς ὁμαρτίας is not quite certified, 


* A logically correct system of ideas may coexist in man with internal falsehood; 
hence holy Scripture attributes no value to correct ideas alone; it requires internal truth, 
from which correct ideas naturally flow. 


452 Ἢ Joun VIIL 35, 36. 


but there is by no means sufficient critical authority to justify its 
rejection. At all events, the only expression that can be supplied 
after δοῦλος is τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Tholuck thinks it gives to the sentence 
a perfectly different meaning, because, if it be retained, δοῦλος, ver. 
35, must be taken in the sense of “servant in a family,” while in 
ver. 34 it signifies “servant of sin” in its metaphorical sense. But 
the difficult comparison in ver. 35, 36, is only to be taken generally, 
as a new illustration derived from the general idea of servant; this, 
therefore, cannot exert any important influence upon the view taken 
of ver. 34. But Tholuck understands the passage, without the ad- 
dition of τῆς ἁμαρτίας, thus: “‘ He who yields himself to sin loses 
more and more of the control over himself, and becomes its slave.” 
This interpretation appears to me mistaken ; the Saviour does not 
here speak of gradually becoming governed, but of being entirely 
under the dominion of sin, All men, in their natural condition, 
commit sin, and on this very account all are servants of sin, and 
do not cease to be so until the Son makes them free. Hence the 
idea of slave involves an acknowledgment of the germ of good in 
man ; for that which is evil itself, cannot be enslaved—this can only 
be the case with what is good.* That which is entirely evil is as 
free from God as that which is good is free from evil ; between these 
_ two stands the natural man (ἄνθρωπος ψυχικός) with a germ of good 
—this germ, however, being held in the power of evil. To this con- 
dition the Redeemer directs the attention of his hearers, in order to 
awaken the idea of a perfect freedom, arising from the perception of 
bondage, and the effort to obtain help which this would induce. 
Ver. 85, 36.—The connexion of the following statement with 
this is simple. In order to excite a lively desire of freedom, the 
Redeemer describes the difference between a slave and a son—the 
former is a stranger in a house, the latter is the lord and heir, and 
always remains in it (Gal. iv. 1, ff.; Heb. iu. 1, ff) The illustra- 
tion, however, drawn from the slave seems to create some difficulty ; 
for, not merely does sin appear as the lord of the slave, although it 
cannot be the father of the son, but moreover, if God be regarded 
as the Parent, the metaphor is not clear, since even the servant re- 
mains constantly in the house,} although indeed as a servant, whilst 
the grown-up son becomes lord. For the solution of this difficulty, 
which in fact is not inconsiderable, various methods have been de- 
vised. As regards the reference to the custom of selling or liberat- 
ing servants (which, according to Exod. xxi., was obligatory every 
* In the fifth edition, Tholuck, although he expels τῆς ἁμαρτίας from the text, at the 


same time justly observes that the sense is not by this means altered. Sinfulness is 
something foreign to man, and the inmost man does not consent to sin. 

+ It might be said that it is needful to supply the words, “ if he be unfaithful,” that is, 
he may be expelled. But this is untenable, because something similar might be said of 
the Son. The discourse here embraces merely the pure ideas of servant and son. 


Joun VIII. 35, 36. 453 


Sabbatic year), Liicke, following the example of Lampe, justly re- 
marks that it is not relevant, since the subject of the discourse here 
is something bad. True, being sold would be previously regarded 
as an evil, because the servant thus became subject to a stranger ; 
but if this circumstance be placed prominently in view, it gives rise 
to the idea of a severity in the lord which is not consistent with the 
connexion, since we must regard God as the Lord of the house in 
which the Son remains for ever. Hence Licke, as also Chrysostom 
and Theophylact, take ‘‘ remaining in the house” (μένειν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ) 
synonymously with ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν χαρίζεσθαι, to have the right of 
liberating the servant. But, in the first place, it is very un- 
natural to put this sense upon that expression, since it does not 
for a moment imply it; and secondly, it would follow that not 
remaining must be understood in the signification ‘not to pos- 
sess the right of liberating,” as Liicke also thinks ; and thus an al- 
together foreign sense is given to the passage. On the other hand, 
the reference to the expulsion of Ishmael (Gen. xxi.), admitted by 
Liicke, in harmony with Calvin, Cocceius, and Lampe, is perfectly 
appropriate, and is expressly indicated by the distinction between 
σπέρμα, seed, and τέκνα ’ABpadu, children of Abraham (comp. Viil. 
37-39), that follows ; though this has no necessary connexion with 
the interpretation maintained by Liicke. According to my convic- 
tion, the only way of solving the difficulty is to view the passage as 
follows : The Jews, as children of the promise, were literally children 
in the great house of God, but through sin, and their protracted 
perseverance in it, they had surrendered themselves as slaves to a 
strange master, viz., the world, or its representative, the Prince of 
this world, Although externally they still lived in the house of the 
Father, ὦ. 6., they stood in connexion with the Temple and its Di- 
vine institutions, yet internally they belonged to the foreign master, 
and it was certain that he would at length put in force his full right 
to them. This right consisted in the fact that he had snatched his 
slaves from the house of the Father, and had appropriated them to 
himself as his property. The only means of averting this horrible 
doom was that these blinded men—who thought themselves true 
children, while they were in reality ‘the slaves of a stranger—should 
rightly perceive their condition, and, as they could not free them- 
selves from the bond, should look around for a deliverer. But the 
only being in whom they could find such ἃ deliverer was the true 
Son of God, who remained perfectly free from sin, and being, as the 
Son of God, the Heir of the Father’s power, is able to rescue the 
prey from the strange master ; hence it was his help that they 
needed to seek. Thus the sense is complete, and the “ truly free” 
(ὄντως ἐλεύθερος) stands in opposition to the imaginary freedom 
which the Jews thought they possessed as descendants of Abraham, 


454 Joun VIII. 37, 38. 


It remains to be observed that the condition of freedom cannot be 
regarded as absolutely realized on earth, because this would pre- 
suppose the transformation of the body, and hence Paul (Rom. viii. 
21) describes the freedom of the sons of God (ἐλευθερία τῆς δύξης τῶν 
τέκνων τοῦ Θεοῦ) as something future. But where the redeeming 
power of Christ displays its effect, there the state of freedom is rel- 
atively attained, and perfection is approximately reached. In this 
relative degree, it exists immediately upon the exercise of living 
faith, which involves freedom from the law, although this does not 
constitute freedom from sin. 

Ver. 37, 38.—To this the Redeemer adds the remark which ac- 
knowledges that the Jews are physically connected with Abraham 
(σπέρμα ’ABoadu* in antithesis with τέκνα ’ABpadu, ver. 39), but de- 
nies that they are so morally. Christ discloses to them the state of 
their hearts, which up to that time may have been concealed even 
from themselves, but which was soon made known to them in the 
deeds that followed (ver. 59). Their inmost life, as one of self-com- 
placence and self-sceking, strove against that Divine life of love, 
which tended to do away their own ; this very opposition between 
the Lord and them necessarily involved their hatred to him, and 
their hatred imptied the spirit of murder (1 John iii. 15). Hence 
the Lord did not go too far, even if they had not yet formed the 
definite design to ΚΗ] him, when he accused them of the spirit of 
murder ; on the contrary, by such a disclosure of the abominable 
wickedness of the heart, he assisted the upright in coming to a 
knowledge of themselves. As a sign of the inward state described, 
Jesus adduces the fact: ὅτι ob χωρεῖ ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐμὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, because 
_ my word hath no place in you. These words result from the most 
vivid spiritual view, which, however, becomes obscured if we trans- 
late λόγος “ doctrine;” it is rather to be rendered ‘‘ word,” the 
word of the Logos is itself spirit and life as he himself is (vi. 63). 
So far as the intellect was concerned, they received his doctrine 
very well, but their hearts remained shut against his beneficent in- 
fluences, and he felt that the stream of life which issued from him 
could not penetrate, but returned to him. (Comp. the parallel pas- 
sage, Matth. x. 13.) The fact that they were thus closed against 
the holy influences of Christ presupposed that a mighty power was 
exerted upon them by darkness. This Jesus openly declares ver. 
44, upon which their hatred at length breaks out (ver. 59) in an actual 
attempt to commit murder. Here again we are not to suppose an 
interchange of ἐν and εἰς ; on the contrary, we must add to the fore- 


* Kling (loc. cit. p. 668, note), in opposition to Licke, acknowledges with me the 
distinction between σπέρμα and τέκνα in our passages. It is self-evident that this is not 
to be sought in the terms as such, but is founded in the connexion of the whole argue 
ment. In Rom. ix. 7, however, the very same distinction is made. 


Joun VIII. 39-48, 455 


going idea of motion the subsequent one of rest ; and this is ex- 
pressed in the év.* The Saviour, in conclusion (ver. 38), points out 
the total disparity between his position and theirs. He traces the 
deepest movements of the vital principle in himself and in them 
(λαλεῖν and ποιεῖν) to sources (πατέρες) entirely different. Ver. 44 he 
plainly avows who it is that he regards as their father. (Ver. 88, 
the pronouns pov and ὑμῶν are, upon internal as well as external 
grounds, to be rejected from the text.) 

Ver, 89, 40.—The Jews again appeal to Abraham, and the Re- 
deemer on the contrary denies that they are children of Abraham, 
because they did not act as he did. (Té«va, children, here forms 
the antithesis to σπέρμα, seed, ver. 33, and designates the inward de- 
rivation of the nature, which must be manifested by similarity in 
the course of life, whose outward expression is found in the works.) 
As a proof of this, Jesus again adduces their seeking to slay him, 
and adds to the pungency of his accusation by referring to that 
“utterance of the truth” which he predicates of himself. 

Ver, 41-43.—The Jews, probably without rightly knowing what - 
Christ means, nevertheless take his words as conveying a meaning 
derogatory to them; they therefore leave the subject of physical 
descent, and call God in a spiritual sense their Father. (According 
to passages such as Isaiah lxii. 16, Ixiv. 8.) Hence the fornication 
(πορνεία) which they deny in reference to themselves, is to be under- 
stood as signifying spiritual fornication, so that the meaning is: 
“we are not the offspring of idolatry, we are true children of God.” 
(Comp. Ezek. xvi. 15, xx. 80.) This, however, the Lord again dis- 
putes (ver. 19), deducing their own estrangement from God, from 
their incapacity to perceive that which was Divine in him. The 
sight of a kindred object awakens responses ; in Christ the pure 
revelation of Deity was given, and therefore he who knew God 
would certainly recognize him as the Holy One of God. (Ver. 42, 
ἐξῆλθον refers rather to the origin of Christ, and 7 to his existence 
on earth, as Liicke justly remarks.) But they could not receive his 
word (ἀκούειν == 34%), and therefore they were not of the truth. 
(John xvui. 37.) Liicke distinguishes between λαλία and λόγος 
thus :—he regards the latter as denoting the contents or the thought, 
and the other as meaning the form, the λόγος λαλούμενος.. This is 
certainly quite correct in itself; but it is evident that in our passage 
the two expressions are employed synonymously, since λαλία in con- 
nexion with γινώσκειν must necessarily have reference to the thought. 

* Kling (loe. cit. p. 666, f, note) thinks there is a twofold reference inthe fundamental 
signification of χωρεῖν. First, it means “to have room for something,”—+7. e. “to con- 
tain ;” or, secondly, “to have room in connexion with something, or in something,”—i. 6. 
“to succeed,” “to find a place,” “to meet with acceptance.” The latter meaning, in 


combination with rest, is the one here applied. It is unsuitable to translate ἐν ὑμῖν, 
“my word has no progress among you.” 


456 Joun VIII. 44, 


Ver. 44—In this verse the discourse of the Lord reaches its 
climax ; he calls the Jews, in so many words, children of the Devil, 
and imputes to them the inclination (θέλετε) to follow out his wicked 
suggestions, in a course of conduct which, according to ver. 87-40, 
refers to the desire to kill Christ. 

In the first place, as regards this expression of the Lord, we may 
remark, that it is to be taken just in the same manner as γεννήματα 
ἐχιδνῶν, generation of vipers (Matth. iii. 7), or as the epithet “ plants 
which my heavenly Father has not planted” (Matth. xv. 13). The 
words of Jesus do not imply an absolutely abandoned condition, for 
in that case his conversation with these men would have been to no 
purpose ; his design must have been to awaken repentance, and 
this would have followed, had they themselves yielded to the accu- 
sation of the Redeemer.* Accordingly the sense of the expression 
is simply this : sin is represented in your hearts in all its heinous- 
ness, hence the kingdom of darkness has access to you, ye allowit a 
place within you, and thus ye are children of the Prince of Dark- 
ness, the offspring of the Devil, who have need to be born again, be- 
gotten anew by God. . 

In the second place, this passage is very important as a proof of 
the general doctrine concerning the Devil. The Lord here utters 
it entirely of his own accord, and even to the offence of his hearers. 
Schleiermacher (Dogm. i. p. 227, f.) endeavours to set aside this 
passage, by stating that it belongs to proverbial usage, though he 
does not say in what this consisted. But that this passage, if taken 
doctrinally, requires either that the Devil be opposed to God in the 
Manichzan sense, or that Christ’s relation to the Father be taken 
neoterically, we cannot see, since not merely is Christ, as the Son of 
God, contrasted with the children of the Devil, but it is also assumed 
of men in general that they might be children of God. And besides, 
as John frequently speaks of the Prince of this world (ἄρχων τοῦ 
κόσμου τούτου), there is no ground here for repelling the idea, 
when it is so obvious ; and the opposition raised by Schleiermacher 
must, in this instance again, have proceeded from his doctrinal 
prejudices. The Saviour does not deem it sufficient to make the 
‘general statement respecting their spiritual relationship to the 

Prince of Darkness ; on the contrary, he gives a precise description 
of his real character, intending this description to furnish them with 
a mirror in which they might see their own internal state. Comp. 
Krabbe, p. 134. He first calls the devil a murderer from the be- 
ginning (ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς). If we compare this with 1 John 
* Still we cannot admié the statement.of Liicke (vol. ii. p. 298), that “ every one can, 
at any moment, if he will, become a child of God or of the Deyil.” At least the one part 
—becoming a child of God—is the work of electing grace, not of man’s will; but grace 


has its seasons, which are to be watched for. The strongest Pelagianism has not ven= 
tured to assert that man at any moment, if he will, can become a child of God! 


Joun VIII. 44. 457 


iii, 15, where the Evangelist expresses his profound view as to the 
nature of the spirit of murder—which he regards as identical with 
hatred—it is beyond all doubt that the term ἀνθρωποκτόνος, mer- 
derer, used in respect to the author of evil himself, cannot refer to 
an isolated deed of external murder—such as that committed by 
Cain—but to the radical principle which produced this as well as 
all other murders. 

It is the seduction of the first man, and the infusion of the 
spirit of murder into him and his entire race, that is here viewed as 
the spiritual murder of a vast aggregate of life. In this sense, it 
may be said literally to have taken place from the beginning, and it 
forms a fine antithesis to the intended murder of the Redeemer as 
the second Adam, whose death was the source of life and happiness 
for all, whilst the death of the first Adam brought destruction upon 
the whole human race. Thus Tholuck correctly explains the pas- 
sage, after the example of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. In the 
most recent times, Liicke, De Wette, and Nitzsch* have maintained 
the reference to the murder committed by Cain: this, however, 
evidently takes away from the depth of the meaning, as also Kling 
(loc. cit. p. 669, note) acknowledges. The view in question certain- 
ly appears favoured by the parallel, 1 John 11], 12 (where the mur- 
der of Cain is the express subject of discourse), as well as by the 
connexion of the words in the passage before us, the primary refer- 
ence in the context being to the designed destruction of Christ. 
But the murder of Abel was too isolated a fact to justify the use of 
the term ἀνθρωποκτόνος, if the reference to spiritual death is to be 
excluded. The blood-thirstiness of the Jews was merely an expres- 
sion of their inward spiritual death. Tholuck adduces, as an argu- 
ment for the reference of the term also to the spiritual death of man 
by means of Satan’s seductions, a suitable parallel from the supple- 
ment to Zohar, in which the old serpent is called Ὁπὰ b-ptz. e., 
“which killed Adam,” viz., in his higher spiritual 1116. 

* Nitzsch, in his treatise on John viii. 44, which in other respects, contains very 
much that is valuable. (Comp. Schleiermacher’s u. s. w. Zeitschrift, No. iii.) 

+ Liicke here warns us against false depth, and that justly. But it is a question 
whether the fear of this has not in the present instance, as in others, led to the con- 
trary, superficiality. His main argument against my opinion is this: “ the view of the 
murder of man, in a spiritual sense, destroys the connexion, because here the discourse 
can have no reference whatever to spiritual murder as respects Christ.” And why not? 
Licke has not specified the reason. Probably he thinks that, on account of ver. 59, 
where it is said the Jews “took up stones,” we cannot suppose murder in a spiritual 
sense. But was this act of taking up stones a literal murder? Did not the Jews really 
believe that Jesus blasphemed God, and that consequently they ought to inflict the pun- 
isumeut which the law appointed for that crime? Besides, it must necessarily be ad- 
vaitted that they were not cherishing this design during the conversation; the whole 
discourse, from ver. 31, is addressed to the Jews who believed in him. Thus the matter 


ig completely reversed, from what Licke maintains; we cannot here suppose plysical, 
but only spiritual murder. These persons, who believed in him as Messiah, had an ap- 


458 Joun VIII. 44. 


We must not overlook the ἦν, was, in our passage ; it implies 
that the Devil constantly maintains the character which he mani- 
fested from the beginning of the history of man. It would add to 
the significance of the second statement which Christ makes respect- 
ing the Devil: ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐχ ἕστηκεν, if ἕστηκεν might be trans- 
lated “he continued not in the truth,” because this would presup- 
pose a previous existence in it, and would accordingly indicate the 
fall of the Devil from that original state of purity. But it has 
already been frequently remarked, and, so far as the terms are con- 
cerned, it is perfectly indubitable (comp. Buttman’s large Greek 
Gramm. vol. 11. ; Winer’s Gramm., 3d edit.), that ἕστηκα and ἑστή- 
kev have the significations, ‘‘ I stand” and ‘‘ I was standing ;” hence 
it appears that here the Saviour describes only the actual state of 
the Prince of Darkness. According to this, however, the words 
“ because there is no truth in him,” present an aspect of pure tau- 
tology ; for, in the first place, it seems self-evident that in him who 
does not stand in the truth there zs no truth ; and secondly, it does 
not at all appear how, according to the above view of ἕστηκε, viz., 
standeth, the second statement could form the ground of the first, 
as is indicated by ὅτι, because. Liicke (p. 288), it is true, takes the 
connexion thus: “ the devil docs not continue in the truth, however 
often he may be placed in it, because the truth does not belong to 
his nature.” But, in the first place, the supposition that the Devil 
has often been replaced in the truth, after having fallen from it, is 
without any foundation ; and, moreover, according to this view, the 
non-existence of truth in him would be the reason of his not con- 
tinuing in the truth, whereas it is evident that the meaning is to 
be apprehended inversely thus: ‘‘ because he does not continue in 
the truth, there is no truth in him.” Hence some expositors have 
even taken ὅτι, because, as a formula of conclusion, in the sense of 
διὰ τοῦτο, for this reason; but Liicke justly observes that, on ac- 
count of the following ὅτε ψεύστης ἐστί, because he is a liar, this hy- 
pothesis cannot well be admitted. If, however, the causal connex- 
ion be retained, we are driven to a view of the words very similar to 
the old interpretation respecting the fall, and which may also be 
philologically maintained ; for the perfect tense ἕστηκα certainly 
may be translated “I stand,” because it literally signifies, “1 have 


parent faith. They entertained worldly hopes in reference to the Messiah, and thought 
that Christ would bring them to pass. But their hearts were set against the real object 
which engaged the mind of Christ, viz., the establishment of a spiritual kingdom, and, 
being lovers of the world, they hated him as the pure Son of God. It was in this 
spiritual haired that their murderous disposition consisted, and not in any positive pur- 
pose to commit corporeal murder upon Christ; they would have shuddered at such a 
thought, for they regarded him as the Messiah. It was not till he ascribed to himself 
Divine properties that they desired to inflict on him the legal punishment. Then let us 
not have superficiality at the cost of exegetic truth! 


Joun VIII. 44. 459 


placed myself.” ‘This original signification being adhered to, the 
expression obtains the meaning of continuance, which Liicke and 
Tholuck also acknowledge. This, however, necessarily, involves the 
idea of previous existence in the truth. Hence we must say, that 
although the proposition, “he continues not in the truth,” certainly 
does not explicitly affirm the fall, yet it implies it ; but the fall is 
regarded as a continuous act rather than as an isolated event. This 
is what Liicke appears to have had in his eye when he employed the 
terms ‘‘ however often he may be, so to speak, placed in the truth ;” 
though his expression is inappropriate. Accordingly, the sense of 
these remarkable words is this: “‘ he continues not in the (element 
of the) truth, for there is no truth at all in him,” 

In considering the sentiment thus embodied, we must not over- 
look, first, the distinction between ἀλήθεια, truth, and ἡ ἀλήθεια, the 
truth, and secondly, the difference in the significations of the 
phrases, “he is the truth” and “truth is in him.” The truth is the 
absolute truth—eternal, pure Being itself. In this element nothing 
moves but that which is in itself holy ; the Devil was ὧν it, but he 
fell, and ever since has continued out of if. An unholy being, how- 
ever, may have truth in himself ; if, for example, he in penitence 
acknowledge his want of holiness, this is a truth in him. But where 
there is not even this truth, there begins that which is devilish ; 
that which is not merely averse from the Divine, but denies it, and 
puts the opposite in its place. Now the Divine activity against the 
Devil is nothing less than a protracted effort to reawaken the truth 
in him ; but since he perseveringly resists this agency of the Divine 
light, he perfects himself in his own character.* Accordingly, as 
all is conceived of in its developed state, so is that which is devilish: 
it became by the apostacy, 7. 6. by an isolated act, what: it is essen- 
tially : but in this its essential character it runs through every 
stage of development ; the unceasing energy of the Light bringing 
upon it the curse that results from shutting itself more and more 
against it. In this persevering activity of opposition, falsehood 
(ψεῦδος) becomes perfected as the property (ἴδια) of the Devil ; for 
perfected falsehood (τὸ ψεῦδος) is not merely that which is sinful in 
itself—which, in man, if acknowledged and repented of, may again 
appear in association with what is good—but includes, along with 
apostacy from God, the positive exertion to establish its apostatized 
existence as eternal being itself. 

It may, however, be said that the statement viewed thus, bor- 
ders upon Manicheeism ; for if the true be that which 7s (i. 14), then 
in the Devil his existence must be a truth, so that the expression 
“there is no truth in him” appears too strong. Were we disposed 


* Compare the remarkable observations of Dschelalledin on the relation of the Devil 
to God; in Tholuck’s Blithensamml. p. 138, ff. 


460 Joun VIII. 45-51. 


to return a subtle answer, we might here draw a distinction be- 
tween ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ, there is truth in him, and αὐτός ἐστιν 
ἀλήθεια, he himself is truth. For, if his existence were not a 
truth, he would certainly be either a chimera, or else an absolute 
being ; but here the only thing intended to be asserted is that the 
free activity in him is not truth. Meanwhile, we prefer saying that 
here we are to retain merely that practical character of holy Scrip- 
ture, which stands entirely aloof from all metaphysical interests ; 
and hence the words are to be judged of only according to practical 
necessity. In conformity with this, Christ aimed so to describe the 
Devil as to shew the Jews their own moral image as essentially dev- 
ilish. The supposition of De Wette, that John teaches an eternal 
fall of the Devil—as John v. 17, an eternal creation (?!)—is with- 
out any authority ; it is to be reckoned among the many instances 
of arbitrary proceeding, in which this expositor attributes his own 
ideas to the author whom he proposes to interpret. 

Ver. 45-47.—These verses contain the application of that which 
precedes to the hearers. They do not receive the (true) faith, just 
because the Redeemer speaks the truth, which as a foreign element 
does not suit them. In the passage xviii. 37, the words ὁ ὧν ἐκ τῆς 
ἀληθείας, ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς, he that is of the truth, etc., are quite 
parallel with ὁ ὧν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, he that is of God, ver. 47. The sense 
is this: “‘the reception of the Divine demands a kindred spirit ; the 
want of this prevents it from being perceived.” According to what 
has preceded, this train of thought is clear; but some obscurity 
presents itself in ver.46. The question: “ Who of you convicteth 
me of sin ?” (τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐλέγχει με περὶ ἁμαρτίας ;)—is evidently in- 
tended to awaken in the listeners the acknowledgment of the holiness 
and sinlessness of Christ, with which the words εἰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω, 
of I speak the truth, seem not to harmonize. Liicke therefore takes 
ἁμαρτία, sin, merely in the signification of “error.” But if we 
apprehend the term ἀλήθεια, truth, in the profound sense in which 
John employs it, the connexion is of the closest kind. The truth, 
as such, can proceed only from him who is sinless ; hence the ele- 
vated moral character of Christ—in which no one, not even the 
bitterest enemy, could find anything to censure—ought to have 
rendered the Jews more observant and more susceptible to his 
commands, 

Ver, 48-51.—After this pungent address, hatred broke forth into 
its virulent fruits; they charged him with heresy and madness. 
(Concerning δαιμόνιον ἔχειν comp. the remarks on vii. 20, x. 20.) 
The term “ Samaritan” involves not only the idea of being held in 
contempt, but that of being in error respecting matters of faith, 
and thus is employed as the designation of a heretic.) The Lord 
repels with gentleness even this bold calumny, adducing first his 


Joun VIII. 52-55. 461 


humble self-forgetting ministry (comp. the observations on vii. 18), 
in order then expressly to describe the eternal blessing which re- 
sults from the reception of his word. (The phrase θάνατον οὐ 
dewpeiv—or, with a modification of the form, οὐ γεύσασθαι θανάτου 
εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα [ver. 52]—is perfectly synonymous with ζωὴν αἰώνιον 
ἔχειν, The words τηρεῖν λόγον ἐμόν, as in the similar case, ver. 32, 
do not mean merely to retain instruction in the memory, or merely 
to carry it out in external action, but in accordance with the pro- 
found view of the word of the Logos, to which John always adheres 
{comp. the remarks on viii. 37], they are to be understood as present- 
ing the word of Christ as a living spiritual power, which is poured 
into the soul as a creative element, and when faithfully retained and 
kept, calls forth therein a new higher life, a heavenly seed, so to 
speak. [Comp. the remarks on 1 John iii. 9.] 

Ver. 52-55.—In such words the Jews think they have a decisive 
proof that the language of Christ is insane, their thoughts turning 
on physical death, the vanquishment of which is here referred to 
only as the extreme point in the redeeming power of Christ. (Comp. 
the Comm. on John vi. 40.) Hence they discover in his words a 
profession that he surpasses Abrahum and the Prophets, Christ by 
no means denies his superior glory, but simply gives prominence to 
the fact that it is not arrogated, but conferred upon him by his 
Father. They, however, do not know this heavenly Father, and 
therefore they are incapable of perceiving his will; but he himself 
so knows him, that if he were to say he does not know him, he 
would participate their element of falsehood. 

It is remarkable that here (ver. 55) the Saviour says of himself 
(1 keep the word of God” (τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τηρῶ) as above (ver. 
51) he had recommended them to keep his word. This language 
seems to favour the Socinian view of Christ ; for τηρεῖν, keep, con- 
stantly indicates the receptive act of the creature toward grace con- 
ferred, but it does not appear how Christ can ascribe this to him- 
self, since he not merely keeps, retains the word of the Father, but 
is himself this Logos. Certainly the difficulty is obviated with ease, 
if it be said that λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τηρεῖν, keep the word, etc., means 
“to carry out the commands of God;” and our passage is 
in that case similar to ver. 46, τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐλέγχει pe περὶ ἁμαρτίας. 
But this superficial interpretation, in the first place, is at variance 
with the profound Johannine view, according to which the practical 
observance of commands appears only as the necessary consequence 
resulting from the inward preservation or retention of the higher 
vital power ; and, secondly, it leads back to the legal state in which 
the question is not of faith but of works. I therefore prefer ex- 
plaining the passage in harmony with the more profound view of 
the phrase, so that Christ here places himself, as a human being, in 


462 ο΄ Joun VIII, 56. 


proximity to his hearers ; as he evidently presupposes in them the 
possibility of knowing God and keeping his word, so he proclaims: 
to them the realization of it in himself. It is in the verses which 
follow, that the language of the Saviour passes over to a statement 
of his absolutely superhuman nature. 

Ver. 56.—In allusion to ver. 53, Abraham is here called “ your 
father,” and thus alike the natural relationship of the hearers to 
Abraham and their spiritual difference from him would seem to be 
implied. That in which Abraham rejoiced as a future good, was to 
those men a matter of no concern, although they had it before their 
eyes. But for the obscurity of the following εἶδε καὶ ἐχάρη, saw and 
was glad, the meaning of the first clause—which is so simple— 
certainly would never have been mistaken. Least of all would the 
better class of expositors, such as Tittman, have allowed themselves 
to be seduced into taking the clause hypothetically—an interpreta- 
tion first proposed by the Socinians, who treat all grammar with 
contempt :—exultaturus fuisset st vidisset diem meum, etc. (Comp. 
Liicke in loco.) The signification of ἡμέρα ἐμή, my day, cannot be at 
all doubtful; according to the wsws loguendi which pervades the Old 
Testament as well as the New, it is the time of Christ’s appearance 
and ministry upon earth. An apparent difference of signification 
is suggested merely by the fact that in the Old Testament, the ex- 
pression nim os, day of Jehovah, comprehends the entire Messianic 
appearance in humiliation and in exaltation viewed collectively,: 
whilst in the New Testament the ‘‘ day of Christ” appears only as the 
future period of Christ’s return. (Comp. the details in the Comm. 
Matth. xxiv. 1.) As regards ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι with ἵνα following, it is by 
no means necessary to ascribe to the verb the idea of wishing, long- 
ing ; it is sufficient to give ἵνα ἴδῃ its right meaning, “ that he 
should see,” and all difficulty is removed. (Comp. Winer’s Gram. 
4th edit. p. 314.) 

But the concluding words, εἶδε καὶ ἐχάρη, saw and was glad, are 
obscure. The reason why they are added is clear: they are intended 
to represent the eternal existence of the Son, as ver. 58 plainly 
shews. But what is their import ? Liicke and Tholuck, influenced 
by the example of Maldonatus, Lampe, and Kuinoel, here suppose 
a view of the coming of Christ upon earth in Abraham’s heavenly 
existence, They say that Abraham, in harmony with the promises 
which he had received concerning the Messiah (Gen. viii. 18, xxii. 
18), rejoiced over the time of Christ’s appearing, and when this 
happened, he, in accordance with the general connexion of the bea- 
tified with the living, felt the influence of the event, and his joy 
was completed. Certainly no one would object to such an interest 
taken by the departed in earthly occurrences, although the passages 
Matth, viii, 11, xxii. 832; Luke xvi. 19 (to which Liicke here refers) 


Joun VIII. 56. 463 


cannot prove it; Matth. xvii. 3, to which Tholuck appeals, indi- 
cates it more plainly. But apart from that, this view of the pas- 
sage will not in other respects, adjust itself to the connexion. True, 
it seems favoured by the fact that ἰδεῖν, seeing, must be something 
else than ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι, exulting, whilst on the other hand, if the act 
of seeing be conceived of as internal and spiritual, the two appear 
identical ; for the exultation itself certainly presupposes that the 
object is beheld by faith. But this apparent advantage, upon closer 
consideration, is seen to be of no importance ; not to mention that it 
is opposed by a very essential circumstance in the connexion. Tor, 
if the sight of the day of Christ by Abraham referred to the time 
of the Redeemer’s ministry on earth, in the first place it would have 
been necessary to employ the present tense, and to say “‘ Abraham 
sees my day and rejoices,” because the ministry of Christ on earth 
was still continuing ; and secondly, ver. 58, would be quite uncon- 
nected with the subject. There the Redeemer declares that he was 
before Abraham ; but how could he say so in allusion to ver. 56, if 
in this verse nothing more were affirmed than that Abraham re- 
joiced in the anticipation of the future Messiah, and his joy was not 
completed till the Messiah came ? If, however, the connexion be- 
tween ver. 58 and ver. 56 be entirely denied, and it be said that the 
declaration ver. 58 was occasioned merely by the remark of the 
Jews verse 57, then it is inexplicable why Christ uttered the 
statement of ver. 56 at all ; these words can have no meaning unless 
they be regarded as intended to represent the superior dignity and 
the eternity of Christ. 

Hence we must agree with Origen, Augustine, the Reformers, 
Bengel, Semler, etc., who here acknowledge a view of the Messiah 
on the part of Abraham while he was on earth. Then ver. 56 and 
ver. 08 are in precise harmony—the latter asserting that at that re- 
mote period it was possible for Abraham to behold him, since he 
was before Abraham. The above-mentioned difficulty easily van- 
ishes as soon as this vision of Christ by Abraham is correztly 
apprehended, The vision in question is to be distinguished from 
the promises that were given to Abraham,* and from the types that 
he saw.f It is true, we cannot with certainty adduce a positive 
historical fact,t as the thing here referred to; but, that is of no 


* The interesting parallel Heb. xi. 13, κατὰ πίστιν ἀπέθανον οὗτοι πάντες, μὴ λαβόντες 
τὰς ἐπαγγελίας, ἀλλὰ πόῤῥωθεν αὐτὰς ἰδόντες καὶ ἀσπασάμενοι, is to be explained as re- 
ferring merely to seeing in faith. 

+ Those types which relate to the suffering Christ, such as the offering of Isaac, are 
by no means to be regarded as pertaining to this subject; for here it is only the glorious 
aspect of the Messiah’s appearance that is viewed. It would be more appropriate to 
think of such as the meeting of Abraham with Melchizedek, and the entertainment with 
bread and wine (Heb. vii.) 

} Licke adduces this circumstance, that nothing is said of such a fact in the Old Tes- 
tament in opposition to our view of the passage; but then Abraham’s sympathy in ἪΝ 


464 Joun VIII. 57-59. 


consequence. Equally well as, according to the other hypothesis, we 
must presuppose that it took place in heaven, may we on the au- 
thority of Jesus, assume it as having occurred in Abraham’s life on 
earth. Suffice it that there was a sacred moment in his life, in 
which—like John who (according to the Apocalypse) saw the last 
time—he beheld the glory of the revelation of God realized in Christ, 
and this sight filled him with happiness and joy.* This view being 
taken, the sequel unites with the statements of ver. 56 in the closest 
connexion. 

Ver. 57-59.—The Jews understood Christ quite correctly, in so 
far as they perceived that he represented himself as existing in the 
time of Abraham ; only they referred this statement to his corpo- 
real existence instead of to his Divine life. (There can be no doubt 
that they named fifty years merely as a round number ; Irenzus, 
therefore, is mistaken in deducing from this passage the conclusion 
that Christ must have been more than forty years old. Iven. adv. 
heer. 11. 39, iii. 22.) The Lord emphatically explains it as indicat- 
ing his higher being: “ Before Abraham was born I am.” In 
these words we must not only retain the antithesis between γίνεσθαι 
and εἶναι (comp. the remarks on 1. 1), according to which Christ as- 
cribes to himself absolute and eternal being ; but the signification 
of the present tense (εἰμί) must not be overlooked. It denotes, as 
the imperfect is elsewhere employed to signify, enduring, necessary 
being. (Comp. the observations on i. 1. Winer’s Gramm. 4th edit. 
p. 244. He adduces from the Old Testament the parallel Jer. 1. 5 ; 
πρὸ τοῦ pe πλᾶσαί σε ἐν κοιλίᾳ, ἐπίσταμαί oe.) In my opinion, however, 
Tholuck is not correct when, referring to iv. 26, he ascribes to ἐγώ 
εἶμι, according to the Hebrew ἘΝ 7, the meaning “I am who I 
heavenly world with the occurrences of the Messianic period must also be proved. The 
same scholar further thinks that there may be no connexion with ver. 58, because this 
was elicited by the exclamation of the Jews ver. 57. But if the Jews did not interpret 
the words of Jesus, ver. 56, incorrectly, it follows that the relation of ver. 58 to ver. 56, 
necessarily requires a reference to the latter; and if their view of his language had been 
false, the Saviour would not have agreed with it, but would have corrected it. Finally, 
Licke opposes my interpretation by the superficial remark that although there is some 
depth in it, it is not true, for Abraham certainly might have beheld Christ, but he could 
not have seen his day, because this was not come; as if the future were not in all pro- 
phetic visions represented as present! If Licke’s exposition were correct, the passage 
must necessarily have run: ‘* Your father Abraham rejoiced that he should see my day, 
and now he sees it and rejoices.” But had this been the form of the words, the Jews 
could not have replied: “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thon seen Abraham ?” 


Accordingly this remark of the Jews renders it necessary to regard the fact that Abraham 
saw the day of Christ, as belonging to the past. 

* Hven passages in the writings of the Rabbins affirm, according to Gen. xviii. 17, 
that God shewed to Abraham ail the future. (Comp. Liicke in loco. p. 310, note.) A 
remarkable parallel to the phrase “ Abraham saw my day” is formed in the speech of 
Balaam, Numb. xxiv. 17, by the words: “I shall see him, but not now; I shall see him, 
but not nigh; there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel” 
The only difference is that there the future is employed and here the aorist. 


Joun VII. 53-VIII. 11. 465 


am.” For here the subject of discourse is not who Christ is, but the 
fact that in his Divine being he is eternal. 

The attempt has been made to remove this meaning, which is of 
so much doctrinal importance, by saying that here being (εἶναι) de- 
notes not real, personal existence, but God’s knowing and willing 
his future existence, so that the sense would be, ‘‘ before Abraham 
was born, God had decreed that I should exist.” Such is the ex- 
planation given by Dr, Paulus, and still earlier by Grotius. But 
where this idea occurs, as for example, Ephes, i. 4, the Divine will 
is the express object of consideration ; here, however, it is merely 
existence that is spoken of, and upon a comparison of i. 1, ‘* the Lo- 
gos was with God,” no doubt remains that the words of the Saviour 
are intended to teach a personal existence. 

This open declaration of Jesus concerning himself caused the 
inward rage of these supposed believers against the object of their 
selfish belief to break loose and display itself externally in the 
attempt to murder ; but as the hour of the Lord was not yet come, 
no hand could touch him ; the shield of God rendered him invul- 
nerable. Jesus, however, left the Temple. (Concerning ἐκρύβη καὶ 
ἐξῆλθεν, comp. Winer’s remarks, Gramm. p, 439.—The additional 
sentence, διελθὼν διὰ μέσον αὐτῶν καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως, in which, accord- 
ing to another reading, ἐπορεύετο is further interpolated, is undoubt- 
edly spurious, and on this account it is rejected by Griesbach and 
Schulz. Probably it was first inserted in the margin, from Luke iv. 
30, and then gradually admitted into the text.) 


§ 3. History or THE ADULTERESS. 
(John vii. 53—-viii. 11.) 


In considering this remarkable account, which we here treat in a 
supplementary way, we have to prosecute a twofold investigation ; 
in the first place, we must examine the subject of its authenticity in 
the Gospel of John ; and secondly, test the credibility of the history 
as such, On the first question, most of the modern inquirers are so 
unanimous in their opinion, that we may regard it as settled. On 
this account, and considering also, it belongs rather to the depart- 
ment of preliminaries, we shall only treat it briefly. The second 
inquiry, on the contrary, seems to me so far from decided, that I 
deem a careful consideration of it indispensable, and to this I hope 
I may be able at least to contribute something. 

1. The spuriousness of the history of the adulteress in John is 
indicated by the manuscripts, Not merely is it wanting in distin- 
guished Codices (as A.B.C.),* but in many of those which contain 


* In regard to Cod. A., however the omission is only concluded from the circumstance 


Vou. I.—30 


466 Joun VII. 53-VIII. 11. 


it, it is marked with the sign of suspicion ; not to mention that a 
great and striking variety of readings occurs in’ the account, by 
which interpolations are generally betrayed. 2, The Fathers and 
the Versions perfectly harmonize with the manuscripts in their tes- 
timony against its authenticity. For, anterior to Augustine and 
Jerome,* we find only slight traces of it, and at a far later period, 
Euthymiusy} declares himself doubtful as to its genuineness. More- 
over, the oldest versions, e. g., the Syriac, Gothic, and Armenian, 
know nothing of the account of the adulteress in John. 3. Evi- 
dence to the same effect is derived from the language, which, in 
many instances, is not Johannine. The expressions πᾶς ὁ λαὸς καθί- 
σας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς (vill, 2), and οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ of φαρισαῖοι (viii. 3), 
are more in conformity with the usus loquendi of the synoptical 
writers than with that of John ; while the entire complexion of the 
language, particularly the incessant δέ is quite contrary to the style 
of our Evangelist. 4. Finally, the context also shews that the his- 
tory does not belong to the Gospel ; for it only interrupts the course 
of the conversation of Christ with the Jews in the Temple (comp. 
the remarks already made vii. 12), and it has no connexion at all 
either with that which precedes it, with that which follows it, or 
with the main design of John. The formula of transition, καὶ ἐπο- 
ρεύθη ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἷκον αὑτοῦ, and cach went, etc. (vil. 53), is in 
the highest degree obscure. It does not appear whether we are to 
understand by “each” the Sanhedrists, who have just been spoken 
of, or the strangers who had come to the feast. The remark in ref- 
erence to the former, that after their sitting was concluded they 
went to their homes—would be perfectly idle ; and the application 
of it to the latter is forbidden by the context, for not a word has been 
previously said about persons who had been journeying to the feast. 
Moreover, thus the following words (viii. 1, 2), Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἐπορεύθη 
εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν - ὄρθρον δὲ πάλιν παρεγένετο εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, but Jesus 
went to the Mount, etc., sound quite as if they related to the last 
days of the life of Jesus, the nights of which we know he spent out 
of the city ; that he did this before that period is not very probable. 

In addition to all these grounds we have the internal argument 
derived from the account itself; but as this is not needed to 
that the pages wanting would not have been sufficient to contain the section. There is a 


break also in Cod. C. The most important MS. in which the piece is found is D.; but 
this Codex gives an entirely different text. 

* Jerome, who devoted himself so much to inquiry, investigated this section. Comp. 
advers. Pelag. ii. 17. He remarks that it is found in many Greek and Latin Codices, but 
still he justly doubts its authenticity. 

+ Euthymius was a learned monk who flourished about A.D. 1116. He was celebrated 
for his Panoplia dogmatica orthodoxee fidei adversus omnes Heereses, which was designed 
to defend the doctrines of the Greek Church against all its opponents. He also wrote 
Commentaries on the Psalms and the four Gospels. Mosheim ranks him among the prin: 
cipal writers of the age. See Soames’ Mosheim, vol. ii. p. 434, note 2.—Tr. 


Joun VII. δ8- 11}. 11. 467 


strengthen the conclusion that the narrative is spurious,* we shall 
view it under the second question, viz., the credibility of the history 
in itself. 

As I cannot agree with the prevailing opinion (entertained even 
by Liicke and Tholuck) that nothing can be urged against the cred- 
ibility of the account itself, I feel bound to give a full statement of 
the difficulties which present themselves to me in the history of the 
adulteress, in order that the objections which I myself shall endeav- 
our to set forth may, if possible, be satisfactorily removed.t 


* The most successful attempts to maintain the authenticity of the account in John 
have been made in recent times by Storr, Staudlin, and Kuinoel; but still the scale pre- 
ponderates against its genuineness; in particular Liicke, De Wette, and Tholuck are op- 
posed to it. 

+ Tholuck finds, in the history of the adulteress, no difficulties of importance. He 
thinks the Pharisees, in arresting the woman, did not intend to perform any judicial act, 
but designed to propose to Christ a mere question of law; and hence they could consist- 
ently withdraw. He is of opinion that the temptation intended for the Lord by the 
question of the Pharisees was this: they, knowing his gentleness, hoped he would speak 
freely to the woman, in which case they could have charged him with the open violation 
of the law. By the treatise of Dieck, however (Studien, 1832, No. 4, p. 791, ff.), I confess 
that I am only confirmed in my doubts, and cannot see the propriety of the course which 
he takes. This scholar, to whom we Theologians must acknowledge an obligation for 
having, as a Lawyer, entered upon the close consideration of this narrative, says (loc. cit. 
p- 796) it appears to him that all depends upon the answer to the question, whether, ac- 
cording to Christian principles, the punishment of adultery with death, is tenable; and, in 
order to answer this question satisfactorily, Dieck thinks it necessary to enter into the 
Christian system of divorce in general. This mode of proceeding seems to me quite mis- 
taken. Since both the woman and the Pharisees were Jews, how could the Christian 
rule be applied to the case? We always find that the Redeemer treats every one aecord- 
ing to the principles which apply to his position: a confused transference of higher prin- 
ciples to persons occupying a lower level never occurs in his ministry. From what follows 
(loc. cit. p. 806, ff), it is also clear that Dieck thinks, ifthe Lord had decided for the ful- 
filment of the law, the Pharisees would forthwith have stoned the woman. But I confess 
I tind that this supposition encumbers the account with insurmountable difficulties; for, 
according to this, the conduct of Christ would have been a complete interference with the 
course of justice—an act which Jesus never allowed himself to commit. Hence the legal 
view put upon the history of the adulteress, in the treatise by Dieck, clearly shews how 
important the perplexities are which the account contains. The whole question is asso- 
ciated especially with the difficult inquiry concerning the relation of the invisible Church, 
and that which obtains in tt, to the external constitution of Church and State, and here pri- 
marily to that of the Old Testament. The words of Luther, “the preaching of Christ docs 
away with sword, judge, and all the rest,” may, in this connexion, be very incorrectly 
apprehended ; in relation to the spiritual world they certainly are perfectly true, but in 
relation to that alone. In the external world the Lord allows justice to take its solemn 
course. Although the thief on the cross sincerely repented, Jesus did not take him from 
the cross by miracle, but suffered him to bear his punishment. In like manner here, it 
cannot be said that the Saviour rescued a guilty but penitent woman from the arm of the 
law which had seized her; although, it may wel! be supposed, that if, according to Di- 
vine permission, no one was found who would make a charge against her, the Lord did 
not consider himself called upon to become her accuser, It must therefore be presumed 
that the Pharisees in question did not act officially, but merely as private persons; the 
narrative otherwise viewed becomes involved in difficulties. The great satisfaction with 
which this account is regarded by worldly men, who are destitute of spiritual life, rests 
mainly upon the misapprehension so easily arising from a false view of history; they think 


468 Joun VII. 53-VIII. 11. 


(1.) The first question is—were the Pharisees and Scribes, who 
brought the woman to the Saviour, acting officially as agents of the 
government, or as private individuals ? In the former case a diffi- 
culty springs from the circumstance that they came to Christ at all, 
and then that they afterwards let the woman go; it would have 
been their duty to hand her over to the magistrate. In the latter 
case, however, it becomes a question to what law they refer when 
they say, Μωσῆς ἡμῖν ἐνετείλατο Tac τοιαύτας λιθοβολεῖοθαι : σύ οὖν Ti 
λέγεις ; (viii. 5). Moses had not appointed every one to be judge, but 
only the magistrate. It is true that appeal has here been made to 
the so-called law of zealots, but the opinion to be formed of this 
has already been indicated in the Comm. on Matth. xxi. 12.* 

(2.) Another difficulty is involved in the circumstance that ston- 
ing for adultery is not commanded by Moses. (Comp. Levit. xx, 
10; Deut. xxii. 22.) According to Talmudic statements, strangling 
and not stoning was customary; it was only when the adulteress 
had been betrothed, or was a priest’s daughter, that the latter 
mode of punishment was adopted. Meanwhile, upon the perusal 
of the disquisition concerning this point by J. D. Michaelis (Mos. 
Recht. Part. v. p. 261, ff.), it is soon seen that little stress is to 
be laid on this circumstance ; for the Talmudists take their data 
from mere conjectures, and the ancient practice in respect to this is 
unknown. 

(3.) A far more important difficulty is started by the inquiry— 
how could this question involve a temptation for Jesus (vill. 6)? 
Had he, according to the law, advised severe measures, or had he 
recommended leniency, it does not at all appear in what way this 
could have injured him, since at any rate he would merely have ex- 
of the Lord as doing away even with the just punishment of sin—a mode of proceeding 
quite suited to their moral indifferentism. But of such a Saviour the Bible knows noth- 
ing! The living Christ is as just as he is gracious, and because sin cannot but be punished, 
he takes its necessary consequences upon himself, bestowing the blessing of forgiveness 
upon those who, in true repentance, pronounce the sentence upon themselves, and believe in him 
who justifies. Thus the thief on the cross, rightly judged, in the conversation with his com- 
panion: ‘‘we receive the due reward of our deeds;” and it was only on account of such 
repentance arising from a true sense of justice, that he could believe in forgiveness. In 
like manner it must be presumed respecting the adulteress, that she deemed herself de- 
serving of death. It was only in this case that the words of the Lord could have been 
applied to her: “ Neither do I condemn thee,”—a declaration which is to be understood 
not merely as negative but as positive also: ‘I forgive thee thy sins!” Only in this case 
could the words “sin no more,” addressed to her after she had received forgiveness, con- 
vey their proper force. Hence, as I have already remarked, I can only consider Dieck’s 
view of the whole matter, according to which the Redeemer was even bound to act as is 
related, in order to save the life of the adulteress (loc. cit. p. 814), as altogether mistaken. 
So far from preservation of physical life being the subject of discourse here, the entire 
ministry of the Redeemer relates to that which is spiritual, and corporeal preservation 
may be regarded merely as the consequence of the salvation of the soul. 


* Olshausen’s remark on this subject, in the Commentary on the passage here referred 
to, is, that the so-called law of zealots has been completely exploded by Liicke.—Tr. 


Joun VII. 53-VIII. 11. 469 


pressed a private opinion. All that has been adduced, in proof that 
such an expression of his sentiments would have exposed him to 
danger, has the evident appearance of being forced ; for example, 
that if Jesus had decided in favour of punishment by death, it 
would have seemed that he vindicated the right of the Jews to ad- 
Ieinister capital punishment, and thus he might have been rendered 
an object of suspicion to the Romans (so Grotius); or, that if he 
had pronounced a lenient judgment, he would have been accused by 
the Jews as a despiser of the law (so J. D. Michaelis). The only 
means of solving the difficulty is to take πειράζειν, tempt, try, in the 
milder sense, as denoting, not a malicious attempt to embarrass, but 
rather a well-meaning desire to gain information. (It is similarly 
employed Matth. xxii. 85, at which place compare the Commentary.) 
It is true the words added, ἵνα ἔχωσι κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ, that they may 
have wherewithal to accuse him, appear opposed to this view of the 
term ; perhaps, however, they may be explained in such a manner 
as not to shew that these individuals intended to derive from the 
answer of Jesus materials for an accusation before the Romans or 
the Sanhedrim, but that they only designed by giving information 
concerning him, to get into favour with the leaders of their sect. In 
this case the act might be regarded as inconsiderate, but not as 
malevolent. Still this is not satisfactory, and the circumstance ccn- 
tains a difficulty hard to be removed. 

(4.) The answer of Christ (viii. 7) seems like an interference 
with the official administration of justice ; for the expression “ the 
Scribes and the Pharisees,” ver. 3, appears to designate the mem- 
bers of the Sanhedrim, who were the lawful judges, The judicial 
punishment of crimes is independent of the guilt that may attach 
to the judge ; it is the duty even of the most wicked judge to pun- 
ish the guilty (unless he intends to augment the number of his sins), 
because he is to be regarded not as an individual, but merely as the 
organ of Divine justice. Here, however, Jesus appears to connect 
the punishment of gross, open transgression with the innocence of 
those who punish. But if this connexion were just, no punishment 
could be admitted in any case, especially considering that dvaydprn- 
τος, without sin (viii. 7), cannot be understood as referring” merely 
to similar crimes of incontinence, in the sense “ he who is conscious 
of being free from guilt in this point,” but must be taken as imply- 
ing sinlessness in general ; for that every one of these Pharisees was 
an adulterer, neither is involved in the words, nor is in itself to be 
supposed ; and hence, as no one is sinless, no sin could be punished, 
Liicke, indeed, on this point observes (p. 190) that here the He- 
deemer spoke merely in reference to the kingdom of God, and he 
quotes the words of Luther: “ Suchis the doctrine of the kingdem 
of Christ ; and when this prevails, it does it does away with the 


470 Joun VII. 53-VIII. 11. 


sword, the judge, and all the rest.” But in all the four Gospels we 
find no instance in which the Redeemer shielded an action evidently 
constituting a gross violation of the Mosaic law from the severity 
which that law enjoined, as it would appear that he shielded this. 
In Luke xv. the prodigality and harlotry of the son is not to be 
viewed as crime coming under the cognizance of the magistrate. 
Even συκοφαντεῖν, defraud by false accusations, Luke xix. 8-10, 
does not denote evident and actionable fraud, but the less palpable 
practice of overreaching, which is to be tried only before the tribu- 
nal of conscience. Adultery, however (7. 6. illicit connexion with a 
married woman, who was regarded as the property of the husband), 
is a positive transgression of the law, which, according to the code 
of Moses, was a capital offence ; how, then could the Lord associ- 
ate the punishment of such a crime with the guiltlessness of any 
cue ? In his relations to the kingdom of God, we never see Jesus 
so invade the existing order of. things as to abolish it. This (as it 
appears to me) very weighty objection to the history has not until 
now been set forth in its full importance, any more than it has been 
appropriately answered. In addition to these considerations, we 
may also notice, in the first place, the extraordinary tenderness of 
conscience manifested, according to vill. 9, by the Pharisees ; sec- 
ondly, the circumstance that, as the same verse implies, the people 
(ver. 2) appear to have withdrawn with the Pharisees, for which 
there does not seem to have been any reasen οὖ all ; and lastly, 
the fact that Jesus, according to vill. 11, utters the words “ go and 
sin no more” (πορεύου καὶ μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε), without anything being 
said about penitence and faith on the part of the woman, If it be 
said that Jesus perceived penitence and faith in her, it must be 
confessed that, in that case, either John or one of the other Evan- 
gelists might have been expected to name it, because by this means 
alone, all misapprehension of the account might have been removed. 

Whether it be possible to set aside all these scruples arising from 
the considerations which I have now enumerated, I know not ; but 
notwithstanding my full sense of their weight, I am-restrained from 
positively denying the credibility of the history, because there are 
also important circumstances in cts favour. 1. As one of these we may 
mention the peculiarity of the history, which makes a subsequent 
fiction improbable. Particularly Christ’s stooping down and writ- 
ing in the sand is such a singular act, that it would hardly have 
been invented without any historical occasion. 2. The account, 
even if it be not John’s, is ancient ; for, according to Eusebius, H 
Τὰ. i, 39, it was found among the additions to the original Mat- 
thew, which occur in the εὐαγγέλιον καθ᾽ Ἑβραίους. 8, No design 
can be ascribed to the invention of this history. All traditional 
legendary compositions bear the impress of a certain party, for whose 


Joun VII. δ8- 11]. 11. 471 


interests they are constructed ; here, however, not a trace of design 
is betrayed. Why it was inserted in this particlar passage of John’s 
Gospel cannot indeed be stated with certainty ; but the words, viii, 
15, ἐγὼ κρίνω οὐδένα might easily induce some one to write this anec- 
dote in the margin of his Codex as a proof to the point. 

These circumstances, which exclude the supposition of a pur- 
posed fiction, induce the following remarks in reference to the 
difficulties specified. In the first place, these Pharisees, although 
to be regarded as natural men, must by no means be considered 
malicious ; they appear rather to have been susceptible of the 
operations of the Spirit, and only to have desired information from 
Jesus as to his opinion on such a case. True, this view of them 
does not suit the context in John; but the account, looked upon 
as an isolated history, contains nothing opposed to it, if we ex- 
cept the words “that they may have wherewith to accuse him” 
(vii. 6), which under any view, disturb the flow of the narrative. 
These persons must be regarded as acting altogether in a pri- 
vate capacity ; they apprehend the adulteress in order to bring her 
before the tribunal ; but as they happened to meet with Jesus they 
laid the matter before him. Accordingly the requirement of the 
Mosaic law to which they refer (viii. 5), is to be understood as re- 
lating merely to the sentence that might be expected from the court 
of justice, and not to an arbitrary execution, on their part, of what 
the law demanded. They were not compelled by any law to present 
themselves as accusers in this affair (they were not at liberty to be 
judges) ; they might have quietly left the husband to complain and 
to call them as witnesses. Doubtless their indignation did not pro- 
ceed from pure moral emotion, but contained an admixture of that 
secret malignant gratification, which so often creeps into the heart 
of man, when he sees his neighbour fallen into sin and misery. 
Perhaps they hoped that as a Prophet, and the supposed Messiah, 
he would deliver an extraordinarily severe opinion respecting the 
unhappy woman, But Jesus first (by the symbolic action of stoop- 
ing down and occupying himself with something else) shewed them 
that such matters did not belong to him (just as in Luke xii. 14); 
and afterwards, when they pressed him more urgently, he pronounced 
no sentence concerning her, but indirectly rebuked the accusers 
themselves, He awoke within them the consciousness of personal 
guilt, which was the most powerful means of suppressing their ma- 
lignant joy ; and as they had now lost the motive for interfering in 
an affair that did not pertain to them, while on the other hand they 
were under no necessity to meddle with the woman, far from reck- 
less malice and with right feeling, they withdrew. Jesus, however, 
did not thus relax the rigour of the law, and still less did he take 
upon himself the judicial office ; he only pointed out to these ac- 


472 Joun VII, 53-VIII. 11. 


cusers, who had taken pleasure in the unhappy circumstances of 
another, that, before they set themselves up as public protectors of 
morality, they should begin with their own faults, leaving the affair 
of the woman to the husband, who alone, in this case, was called to 
speak. Now, regarding himself also merely as a ptivate person, and 
perceiving the woman’s sincere penitence, Jesus could say to her: 
οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω, neither do I condemn thee—while this declara- 
tion being purely spiritual and individual, and not the sentence of 
one appointed to be Judge, neither was intended to make, nor could 
make, any invasion of the rights belonging to the husband and to 
justice, if the former chose to prosecute his cause. Thus the con- 
duct of Jesus wrought most beneficently upon all parties, with- 
out involving any injury whatever—According to this view, the 
principal considerations against the credibility of the account dis- 
appear ; and if at the same time we admit that it was not directly 
composed by an apostle, but was produced at second-hand somewhat 
later, the circumstance that no explicit mention is made of repent- 
ance and faith (viii. 11), which otherwise would be strange in the 
highest degree, becomes explained, as also the inexactness of the 
representation, 6. g. vill. 9, where μόνος relates merely to the Phar- 
isees who had withdrawn, and not to the people (ver. 2). 

The most dubious point, however, in the narrative, is the de- 
scription of the Pharisees as πειράζοντες, iva ἔχωσι κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ, 
tempting that they might, etc. (vill. 6), which neither appears con- 
sistent with the by no means unsusceptible disposition afterwards 
ascribed to them, nor with the fact that no temptation was involved 
in the question. Hence a certain suspicion respecting the credibility 
of the history of the adulteress continues in my mind, and no ex- 
planations as yet offered have sufficed to remove it. I would that 


some one may succeed, by a more acute analysis, in dispelling all 
my doubt !* 


* Olshausen himself has answered, partially, the leading doubts which he has urged 
against the authenticity of the passage here in question. I think they may be answered 
still more fully. 1. Apart from external evidence, no good objection can, perhaps, be raised 
against it on the ground of its interrupting the narrative. V. 12, of ch. viii. agrees fully 
as well —{perhaps better—) with this narrative as with the close of ch. vii. Ifthe nar- 
rative was to be introduced at all, there seems no valid objection against it here. 2. The 
narrative itself presents no greater difficulties than many unquestioned passages in the 
Evangelists. No difficulty can be raised against our Saviour’s assuming the judicial office, 
for, as Olshausen rightly remarks, he does not assume it. He treats the woman as he 
treated all other sinners, forgiving her as a penitent, and his declaration, “let him who is 
without sin,” etc., is strictly moral in its bearings, and isnot intended to interfere with 
the rights of the magistrates. Olshausen’s chief objection seems founded on the alleged 
malicious purpose of the questioners (that they might haye wherewith to accuse him), 
which he says is not apparent in the question, and which is inconsistent with the suscep- 
tibility which they subsequently manifested. To this we may reply first, that we can 
conceive a variety of ways in which the question might have been captious and malig- 
vant, and it is no ground of surprise if at our distance of time we cannot precisely de 


Joun VII. 53-VIII. 11. 473 


The individual points of the section remain to be noticed. The 
expression ἐπαυτοφώρῳ (vill. 4), is, in the New Testament, an ἅπαξ 
λεγόμενον. Hesychius explains it: ὁ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ τῷ κλέμματε εὑρεθεὶς, ἔτι 
κατέχων αὐτό. In the wider sense it signifies “taken in the act it- 
self.’—The action of Christ in stooping down and writing on the 
ground. is altogether peculiar. Even the transcribers were perplexed 
as to the manner in which this fact was to be understood ; hence 
some added καὶ προσποιούμενος, 7. 6. ‘ appearing as if he wrote,” 
while others, adopting a sense precisely opposite, appended the 
words μὴ προσποιούμενος, not pretending, t. 6. he wrote in reality. 
Many even sought to find out what the Saviour might have writ- 
ten ; the idea was widely prevalent that Jesus wrote hints concern- 
ing the sins of the Pharisees, and that when they perceived his 
knowledge of their hearts, they slipped away. But this interpreta- 
tion proceeded from the feeling that the withdrawment of the 
Pharisees required a motive, because in consequence of viii. 6 they 
were regarded as malevolent tempters of Christ—which view, how- 
ever, renders the history perfectly unintelligible. Modern ex- 
positors are united in the opinion that the stooping down and 
marking in the sand is merely an expression of refusal, indifference, 
unwillingness to reply.* Instances of the same custom frequently 
occur among the ancients. Thus, for example, in the beginning of 
the Acharnians of Aristophanes, ver. 30, ff. it is said : 


κἄτ᾽ ἐπειδὰν ὦ μόνος, 
στένω, κέχῃνα, σκορδινῶμαι, πέρδομαι, 
ἀπορῶ, γράφω, παρατίλλομαι, λογίζομαι κ. τ. A. 


where the expressions γράφω and παρατίλλομαι, “I write,” and “1 
pluck out a hair here and there,” indicate actions implying embar- 


termine how it was so. Either lenity or severity might have been turned against the 
Saviour. Secondly, the subsequent susceptibility of the questioners argues rather guilt 
than innocence, and none can tell how much moral power may have been thrown into the 
words, looks, and manner of the Lord. It may have been sufficient to abash any 
amount of malignant hypocrisy. Finally, the moral character of the transaction renders 
its fabrication almost incredible, and makes it worthy of the Gospel. In the simple 
sublime wisdom with which it evades a difficulty, and triumphantly repels the arts of the 
insidious, it stands on a level with the reply in respect to paying tribute to Cresar, and 
to the authority by which he acted: nay, in its moral element it is superior to these, 
and stands in the same relation to the general tenor of John’s Gospel, which they do to 
that of the synoptical Evangelists. As in those cases he silenced his enemies by a reply 
framed with most simple and beautiful adroitness, he here confounds them by an appeal 
to their consciences, whose felt majesty and omniscience drove them from his presence. 
—(K. 

Jer. xvii. 13, the phrase ‘‘ to write the name of some one in the earth” is a figura- 
tive form for “leaving to destruction” But if this signification be applied here, it fol- 
lows that Christ judged the Pharisees, which, according to viii. 15, does rot appear to be 
the tendency of the account. Besides which, in that case the words ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν 
would not have stood alone, but ὀνόματα αὐτῶν or αὐτούς must hava been added. 


474 Joun IX. 1. 


rassment, absence of mind, or occupation with something else. 
Comp. also Aelian, Var. hist. xiv. 19,* and from the Talmud. 
Tract. Gittin, fol. vii. 1. (Consult Tholuck in loco.) 

The words viii. 7, πρῶτος τὸν λίθον ἐπ’ αὐτῇ βαλέτω, let him first 
- throw a stone at her, are not to be regarded as containing an invita- 
tion to put the sentence in execution themselves (this belonged to 
the judicial authorities); the phrase is rather equivalent to the 
following condemn, verse 10. Any one may in his own thoughts 
condemn as well as acquit a criminal, without assuming the pre- 
rogative of the magistrate, supposing that he passes his opinion 
merely as an individual judgment. It is thus that we are to take 
the language of Jesus: ‘ neither do I condemn thee,” ὦ. 6. in refer- 
ence to the external fact; while, again regarded spiritually, it 
has its eternal significance. It may be supposed that after this 
acquittal of the woman by the Lord, if the husband had prose- 
cuted her, she would have been condemned by the court and 
stoned ; but this would not have annulled the pardon granted by 
Christ, which was of everlasting force in regard to her soul. Hence 
Augustine very justly remarks: ergo et dominus damnavit, sed 
peccatum, non hominem. (Concerning εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς or καθεῖς | Mark 
xiv. 19; Romans xii. 5] comp. Winer’s Grammar, 4th edition, 
Ῥ. 227. It is asolecism occurring also in profane writers. On the 
formation of this expression comp. Déderlein de brachylogia [Hrl. 
1831] p. 10.) 


§ 4, Heatine or THE Man Born Buinp. 
(John ix. 1-34.) 


The extended series of discourses, terminating with ch. viii. is 
followed by the history of a cure. Of the chronological connexion 
of this with the preceding, we have no express accounts, but the 
παράγων, passing along (ix. 1), in connexion with ver. 14, according 
to which the healing took place on the Sabbath, allows us to regard 
the event as having occurred on the same day in which the above 
discourses were delivered. This was the final day of the feast (vii. 
37), and as such, a Sabbath. If a subsequent Sabbath had been 
meant, it is probable that μετὰ ταῦτα, after this, or a similar for- 
mula, would have been added. As regards the form taken by the 
history of this cure, we are struck by the great degree of amplifica- 
tion, which brings to mind the accounts of cures given by the sy- 
noptical Evangelists. But, in the first place, it is to be observed 

* In Aelian it is said of Archytas, that being asked an impudent question, he was 
silent, ἐπέγραψε δὲ κατὰ τοῦ τοΐχου, δείξας μὲν, ὃ εἰπεῖν ἐβιάζετο, ob μὴν βιασθεὶς εἰπεῖν. 


But we must not overlook the circumstances that Aelian meniions this fact as an un< 
usual one. 


Joun IX. 1, 2. 475 


that this narrative does not stand by itself ; it is in union with the 
discourses in chap. x., to which it forms the historical foundation. 
And secondly, the greater part of this paragraph is not the history of 
the healing, but a representation of the insidious proceedings of the 
Pharisees. The portraiture of the growing hatred of the adver- 
saries of Jesus toward him, has been with strict propriety incorpo- 
rated by the Evangelist into the scope and object of his work, as 
connected with the closing period of our Saviour’s ministry on earth. 

Ver. 1, 2—In the neighbourhood of the Temple there frequently 
lingered sufferers (Acts iii, 2), amongst whom was a man born blind. 
The severity and rareness of this affliction, induced the disciples to 
inquire into its cause. They traced this, like all evil, to sin, but 
they were in doubt whether the sins of the man’s parents, or his 
own, had been the cause of such a calamity. The former view was 
very natural, and is also intimated ix. 24, According to Exod. xx. 
5, evil is visited on the third and fourth generations, while good is 
transmitted to the thousandth ; or, inverting the statement, God, 
by his grace, so soon arrests the naturally progressive workings of 
sin, that they are not displayed beyond the fourth generation. Thus 
instead of severity being involved in this, as is often believed, it im- 
plies transcendant grace. At the same time, even this transmission 
of happiness or suffering from parents to children, presents nothing 
inconsistent, except when men are regarded as independent individ- 
uals, standing in perfect isolation from the mass ; while, according 
to all profounder views, humanity appears as a living whole, of 
which individuals are members, and as members naturally share 
the condition of the entire body. Participation, however, in the 
suffering of the parents is no more a sign of personal guilt, than 
participation in their happiness is a matter of personal merit.* 
(Comp. the details in the Comm. on Rom. y. 12, ff.) But the most 
remarkable part of our passage is the alternative presented in the 
words : did this man sin, or his parents? (ἢ οὗτος ἥμαρτεν, ἢ οἱ γονεῖς 
αὐτοῦ:). The hypotheses of the pre-existence and transmigration of 
souls, which it was at one time attempted to found upon this pas- 
sage, may now be regarded as obsolete. The Jews do not appear 
at any time to have entertained these notions ; at all events, the 
people in general never did.t It is also to be observed that, had 


* The book of Job is a commentary on the truth that personal suffering is not 
always to be looked upon as the punishment of corresponding personal guilt. Job's 
friends, in consequence of his suffering, supposed that he had contracted proportion- 
ate guilt, and urged him to confess it; he declares his innocence, and God recognizes 
it. The passage Deut. xxiv. 15, refers to personal guilt, which every one bears for 
himself. 

+ That the Jews believed the doctrine of metempsychosis has beon inferred from 
Josephus, B. J. ii. 12, who remarks: the Pharisees thought that souls passed into other 
bodies. But this, when rightly apprehended, has reference only to the μετενσωμά- 
τωσις, ἴ, 6. the transition of the soul into a glorified body at the resurrection. The pre- 


476 Joun IX, 3. 


they done so, they must have supposed not merely pre-existence, 
but (with Origen) a fall among souls in the spiritual world. Hence 
Tholuck is of opinion that the passage is to be understood as re- 
ferring to anticipatory punishment for future sins, which God, in 
his omniscience, foresaw in the blind man, but that this view may 
have been entertained without any analogy in the Holy Scrip- 
tures.* Liicke, on the contrary, agrees with Lightfoot, and refers 
it to sins which the blind man may have committed in the womb of 
his mother, The Rabbins certainly assumed the possibility of such 
sins, and, in speaking of it, they appeal to the contest between 
Esau and Jacob in the womb of Rebekah, Gen. xxv. 22. It is, in- 
deed, doubtful whether, in the time of Christ, this had become a 
familiar national idea; but this view of the obscure passage com- 
mends itself to me more than the others which it has been attempted 
to found upon it. 

I class the phrase ἵνα τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ, with those in which ἵνα is 
used as indicating consequence and not design. Winer, indeed 
(Gramm. 3d edit., p. 383), says that it is to be explained from the 
Jewish teleology, which the disciples, in the national spirit of exag- 
geration, had believed. But surely it would be a forced statement 
to say that the disciples supposed either the blind man or his pa- 
rents to have sinned for the purpose, or with the design that he 
might be born blind. According to the Jewish teleology such a 
design might certainly be ascribed to God, but not to sinners them- 
selves. If therefore, it is incorrect to be perpetually saying that iva 
is employed ἐκβατικῶς, in order to remove a difficulty in the mean- 
ing, Fritzsche and Winer seem to me to have gone equally too far 
in asserting that in the New Testament iva is only used τελεκῶς, 
(Comp. the Comm. Matth. 1. 22.) 

Ver, 3.—The words of Jesus are by no means intended to convey 
a general denial of the sinfulness of the blind man and his parents ; 
they merely deny the connexion of this particular affliction with a 
definite personal guilt ; although, apart from the collective guilt 


existence of the soul does indeed appear to be asserted in some rabbinical writings. (See 
the passages in Lightfoot, hor. heb. p. 1049.) They speak of a place where souls are as- 
sembled, which they call Goph or Guph (η.5), and from which souls gradually descend 
into bodies But the question is, whether this idea had been distinctly favoured in the 
time of Christ? The later Rabbins have taken a great deal from the Guostics and other 
sects that was not known by the Jews of earlier times. Thus Eisenmenger (entd. 
Judenth. ii. p. 85) adduces passages from the writings of later Rabbins, which teach, 
under the name of Jbbur, a regular transmigration of souls. 

* True, these words were spoken only by disciples whom we may regard as still un- 
enlightened; so that we may admit this interpretation without supporting the untenable 
distinction, in the doctrine of predestination, between pravisio and preedestinatio. But 
still I hesitate to receive this view of the passage, since it appears to me improbable 
that, at the time of Christ, opinions of this kind were prevalent among the Jews: at all 
events, I know no certain proof that they were so. 


Joun IX. 4, 5. 471 


of the race, we cannot suppose suffering in any instance. Hence, 
also the ἵνα φανερωθῇ κ. τ΄ A., that the grace of God, etc., cannot de- 
note the only reason of the man’s being born blind, but simply the 
agency of Divine grace, which in the phenomena of suffering again 
opens fountains of happiness. Evil still remains evil, even when 
God employs it to manifest his marvellous works. (Respecting the 
idea of ἔργα, comp. the remarks on John v. 36.) 

Ver. 4, 5.—According to the ordinary interpretation—which 
gives to ἡμέρα, day, the sense of tempus opportunum, and to νύξ, 
night, that of tempus importunum (the latter being intended to 
designate the departure of the Lord)—this passage is by no means 
clearly intelligible. Even Dr. Paulus justly observes that, taking 
this view of the passage, the words “πὸ man can work” (οὐ δεὶς 
δύναται ἐργάζεσθαι), are unintelligible, since it was after the departure 
of Christ that the apostles strictly began to work, On this ground 
he explains day as meaning daylight, and takes the passage as in- 
dicating the impossibility of effecting the cure without the necessary 
light of day. This view of the passage needs no refutation, as it 
obviously proceeds merely from the objection of its author to mir- 
acles ; but the remark against the ordinary exposition is certainly 
correct. In addition to this difficulty—occasioned by the occur- 
rence of the term οὐδεὶς, none, whereas the Lord at first spake only 
of himself—as well as the uncertainty of the antithesis between day 
and night, a question arises concerning the true relation between 
ver. 5 and ver. 6. While in the latter verse Jesus represents him- 
self as working by day, in ver. 5 he describes himself as the light 
that brings the day, by which means the metaphor is completely 
changed. According to this we should expect ὑμᾶς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι 
Κ. τ. 2., ye must work, etc., in which case the two verses would have 
been in perfect harmony. Now, although this reading does not 
occur, ἡμᾶς does, and this may have proceeded from a sense of the 
difficulties in the passage, notwithstanding the fact that it does not 
entirely remove them. 

The passage becomes intelligible only as we apprehend more 
profoundly the terms day and night. After comparing passages such 
as Luke xxii. 53 (this is the hour in which darkness has dominion), 
we cannot well doubt that the two expressions denote the predom- 
inance of the element of grace or of darkness, 7. ¢., evil. The period 
of grace was then specially conditional on the presence of Christ as 
the light of the world ; when he withdrew, darkness broke in, 
although it did not prevent the dawn of a new and more glorious 
day in the invisible ministry of Christ through the power of the 
Spirit—a day that will not attain its perfect splendour till Christ 
returns. ‘Thus Christ is conceived of in a twofold manner, first, as 
the illumining sun of the spiritual world, and secondly, as himself 


478 Joun IX, 4, 5. 


co-operating with it.* In the latter view he appears as the pattern 
of the human race, and in connexion with this the reading ἡμᾶς, us 
(c. e., we must work), has its truth. Hence the language is appli- 
cable to all times of blessing, alike for the individual and for the 
community, seasons of favour being constantly followed by darker 
hours, which latter prove a blessing only when the others have been 
improved. This interpretation makes the sense of the words 
as follows: “I must work the works of God while good predom- 
inates ; too soon the time will come when darkness will gain domin- 
ion and (for a space) interrupt all labour (in spiritual things), 
So long as I am in the world, Iam the Light of the world, and I 
promote the prosperity of all that is good ; but as soon as the dark- 
ness breaks in and hides me from view (which shortly came to pass 
at the death of Christ), that prosperity will be arrested.” The 
physical alternation of day and night, which controls all the pro- 
cesses of nature, thus forms a striking symbol of the alternating 
sway of the powers of the unseen world. (Comp. the Comm. on xi. 
9,10; xii. 35, 86.) The words, however, were specially intended 
to draw the thoughts of the disciples—whose attention had been 
in the present case fixed merely on the sick man—to the fact that 
the Father had prepared all things, and, amongst others, this blind 
man, for the sublime ministry of the Son ; hence it was his duty to 
glorify God in him. 

This view of the passage has been opposed by Liicke and Kling, 
although upon grounds evidently unsatisfactory. But the interpre- 
tation proposed by them needs a close consideration, as at first sight 
it appears plausible. According to this, the formula οὐδεὶς δύναται 
ἐργάζεσθαι, no one can work, is merely a proverbial mode of expressing 
the thought: “ One cannot work at night ;” while ver. 4 and ver. 5 
are so connected that in the latter the nature of Christ’s work is 
more precisely defined. In this case the sense would be: ‘‘ For me 
also there comes a time when it is not possible to work ; since I am 
in the world I am the Light of the world, it is my vocation to en- 
lighten.” But, in the first place it is quite beyond proof that any 
such proverbial mode of expression as οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐργάζεσθαι, ex- 
isted. It is only the first part of the Saviours language that is 
proverbial, viz., “‘It is necessary to work, while the day lasts ;” the 
other part, ‘a night cometh, when no man can work,” is Christ’s 
prophetic announcement of the future. In the second place, it is 


τ 


quite incorrect to translate ὅταν ὦ “since I am ;” ὅταν signifies 
quando, si quando, quamdiu, but never “since.” (Cf. Wahl. clav. 
N. T.s. v.) Kling acknowledges that Liicke is mistaken here, and 
thinks ὅταν is to be understood as quamdiu, while ; but he has 
overlooked the fact that then the entire meaning is incongruous, 


* Compare Meyer’s Blatt. ἢ hoh. Wahrh. Vol. iii. p. 361, δ. . 


Joun IX. 6, 7. 479 


According to Lucke’s interpretation, ὅταν must here signify “ since.” 
Kling thus removes the foundation from the exposition which he, 
on the whole, approves. For, according to Kling, what would be the 
meaning of the words, “so long as I am in the world I am the Light 
of the world ?” ‘Being in the world,’ means here, assuredly, “to 
live,” “to dwell on earth ;” and did Christ cease to be the light of the 
world when he ceased to dwell on the earth ? Hence we are only 
afresh convinced that our interpretation is correct, the twofold aspect 
in which, according to this, Christ contemplates himself, not being at 
all prejudicial, since the like frequently occurs in his discourses. In 
regard, however, to what we have said respecting the commence- 
ment of a new, brighter day, after the night had gathered over the 
Lord, this is not (as Kling seems to suppose) made prominent as 
involved in the text, but merely remarked in order to shew the 
reader more plainly in what manner, according to the case in ques- 
tion, we are to regard the relation of subsequent times to the life ot 
Christ on earth. 

Ver. 6, 7.—As regards the cure of the blind man by means of 
spittle, we have already treated of that subject in the remarks on 
Mark vii. 82, where the same method was adopted in the case of 
one who was deaf and dumb. We have merely to observe, that in 
diseases of the sight the ancients often recommended saliva (and 
even saliva jejuna). Comp. Pliny H. N. xxviii. 7.* It is a pecu- 
liarity in our history, that the Redeemer further recommended 
washing in the pool of Siloam. To me, however, it appears alto- 
gether unlikely that this washing was designed to accomplish any 
part in the cure ; it was probably intended merely to remove the 
clay (πηλός) laid upon the eyes ; and special mention is made of it, 
because, at the moment when the clay was taken away, the disen- 
gaged eye was enabled to perform its function. The only instru- 
ment by which the cure was effected was the clay (formed from the 
πτύσμα, spittle), which acted as a conductor of the healing energies 
of Christ. (Σιλωάμ = md¥ or nb’, Nehemiah iii. 15 ; Isaiah Vill, 6} 
According to tradition it sprang at the foot of Moriah, and hence it 


* Suet. vit. Vespas. 7, it is said of this emperor (Vespasian): e plebe quidam lumi 
nibus orbatus, item alius debili crure, sedentem pro tribunali pariter adierunt, orantes 
opem valetudinis, demonstratam a Serapide per quietem (in a dream) restituturum oculos 
si inspuisset; confirmaturum crus, si dignaretur calee contingere. Cum vix fides esset, 
rem ullo modo successuram, ideoque ne experiri quidem auderet, extremo hortantibus 
amicis, palam pro coccione utrumque tentavit, nec eventus defuit. In the history of the 
same man by Tacitus (hist. iv. 81) it is said: ut genas et oculorum orbes dignaretur 
respergere oris excremento, An analogy to this is furnished in modern times by the 
custom of the French kings in healing scrofulous affections, 

+ Lightfoot (hor. heb. 1052) distinguishes between the two names, and refers them to 
the two ponds which the stream formed. Probably, however, the two forms were em- 
ployed interchangeably. The stream ran at the foot of Mount Zion, at the southern end 
of the city. Comp. Just. Olshausen sur Topographie des alten Jerusalem, p. ὅθ. 


480 Joun IX. 8-16. 


was a type of the spiritual stream which issues from the Temple of 
God. (Isaiah viii. 6 ; Ezekiel xlvii. 1.) 

Tholuck thinks that the appended remark: ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται ἀπεσ- 
ταλμένος, which is interpreted, Sent, by which John explains the 
name Siloam to his Greek readers, is intended to convey a typical 
reference to Christ, and on this account he is inclined to expunge it 
from the text, as a gloss by an allegorizing Greek of a later period, 
in which view Liicke also agrees. But this opinion is not supported 
by critical authorities. The words are inserted by all of them ex- 
cept the Syriac version, in which case its omission is a matter of 
course. It is also to be borne in mind that John is fond of such ex- 
planatory additions, and has many of them. There is nothing what- 
ever prejudicial in tracing this remark to John himself, if it be re- 
garded merely as an etymological interpretation. How he can have 
intended it to suggest a type of Christ it is difficult to conceive, 
since the man was the individual sent, and Christ was the sender. 
To me it appears certain that, if John had designed to use a figure | 
at all, he would have compared the rivulet that sprang from under 
the Temple-Hill (the symbol of God’s heavenly dwelling) to the 
spiritual stream which issues from God. (The forms ποῦ and ny, 
may also have a passive signification. Comp. Tholuck, Beitrage 
zur Spracherklir. des N. T., p. 123, ff.) 

Ver. 8-12.—The first persons who make remarks on the miracu- 
lous cure are the neighbours—well-meaning men, but completely 
under the influence of the Pharisees. They are amazed, and desire 
to see Jesus, but for the sake of safety they immediately bring the 
matter before their spiritual leaders, Προσαίτης, mendicus, occurs 
only here, and even here it does not rest upon certain evidence ; 
many distinguished Codices have τυφλός instead. But the latter 
reading too plainly betrays itself as a correction from the context ; 
as the distinctive feature in the man’s case was his being blind, not 
his begging. The verb προσαιτέω, however, occurs Mark x. 46; 
Luke xviii. 35. 

Ver. 13-16.—The report of the cure to the Pharisees now leads 
to further transactions respecting the miracle. The enemies of the 
Saviour, in order to rob it of its importance, say that it was per- 
formed on the Sabbath. But the cure of a man born blind appears 
to some among them too difficult to have proceeded from any other 
than Divine power. The formality of the investigation renders it 
likely that the whole affair took place before a tribunal, which prob- 
ably was the so-called petty Sanhedrim. (The term was applied to 
inferior courts of justice, which existed in all cities. Respecting the 
Jewish tribunals, comp. the Comm. on Matth. xxvi. 57.) Before 
this assembly, a difference of opinion concerning the matter might 
arise, because the Pharisees, with all their minute casuistry, had 


Joun IX. 17-34. 481 


not attained so far as to decide upon every case in which a disease 
might or might not be healed.* 

Ver. 17-23.—Perhaps they hoped to be able to bring the blind 
man himself as a witness against Christ, since they asked him about 
his benefactor ; but the simple man spoke in his favour. He re- 
garded Jesus as a personage endowed with superior powers, a pro- 
phet (x32). (As to the degree of faith manifested by the restored 
man, comp. the Comm. on ver. 30, ff.) The Pharisees now inquire 
of the parents whether it was not incorrect that their son had been 
blind from his youth, and whether some deceit was not being prac- 
tised in jest. They, however, for fear of the tyrannical Rabbins de- 
clined any discussion of the matter, and referred to the man him- 
self, who had attained his full age (ἡλικία, ver. 23). 

The Evangelist incidentally remarks (ver. 22) that the Jews had 
already resolved (συντίθεσθαι, to pass a decree, to come to an agree- 
ment; compare Luke xxii. 5; Acts xxiii. 20) that those who would 
declare Jesus to be the Messiah should be separated from connexion 
with the synagogue. Compare John xii, 42. (The expression 
ἀποσυνάγωγος γίνεσθαι, indeed, does not apply to the two highest de- 
grees of excommunication, 07 and xmat, but only to the lowest 
punishment, which was called 55π, and consisted in being excluded 
from the synagogue for a month. It is evident that the penalty 
was intended merely as a means of intimidation to prevent the peo- 
ple from allying themselves to Jesus.) 

Ver, 24-27.—Once again the Pharisees turn to the healed man 
himself, and seek, by means of their spiritual authority, to lead him 
into error. They tell him that they know “ he (Jesus) is a sinner 
(ἁμαρτωλός). The honest and sincere man, however, does not allow 
himself to be drawn aside by falsehood, but retains the impression 
which he at first received from the Lord, which was one of absolute 
beneficence and blessing. With the power of simplicity he unveils 
to the Pharisees the secrets of their own hearts, and shews them 
the impuri‘y from which their question proceeded, in the words: 
“do ye also wish to become his disciples ?” (μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς θέλετε αὐτοῦ 
μαθηταὶ γενέσθαι). (Διδόναι δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ here signifies to tell the 
truth : “do not attempt to conceal that which is known to us, and 
of which we have been informed of God.” The idea of ἁμαρτωλός, 
sinner, here, as at ver. 16, is that of a person who dispieases God, 
and to whom, on this very account, God does not impart or intrust 
any higher powers. Compare the remarks on ver. 30, 31.) 

Ver, 28-34.—The boldness of the man’s faith now kindles their 


* The folly of the Rabbins in settling these matters surpasses all description. Comp. 
Lightfoot hor. p. 1051, where he quotes from Schabb. fol. 108, 2: vinum in medium oculi 
injici (sabbato) prohibitum, poni super palpebras licitum. Alter dicit, sputum etiam super 
palpebras poni prohibitum. 


Vou. IL—31 


482 Joun IX. 28-34, 


rage to a flame; they place themselves, as genuine disciples of 
Moses, in contrast with him, as an apostate and follower of Jesus. 
This leads the man born blind to become the teacher of those who, 
as the guides of the people in spiritual matters, ought to have been 
able to see clearly. The words “ whence he is” might induce the 
belief that we could discern more in the blind man’s statement of 
his views of the Redeemer than was expressed at yer. 17, where he 
called him a prophet ; for the expression (πόθεν ἐστί) might be ap- 
plied to a higher, heavenly existence, to the Divine nature of Christ. 
But, upon a closer view, it is easily seen that the language is not 
employed in this sense. The Pharisees compared Christ with Moses, 
and then said, in reference to the former: but of this man we 
know not whence he is (τοῦτον δὲ οὐκ οἴδαμεν πόθεν éott), Moses is 
spoken of as one from heaven, not as possessing a superior heavenly 
nature, but as a Prophet, as one sent from God. The words of the 
healed man respecting Jesus convey just the same meaning, while 
the higher conviction of the Divine origin of Christ might easily be 
developed from this faith, as the germ from the root. The single 
proof on which the man’s faith rested, was subjective experience. It 
is evident, however, that his experience did not relate merely to the 
external cure, but in connexion with this light beamed into the depth 
of hissoul. But for such an influence of grace, his faith being as yet 
only in the germ, he would not have been able to meet the malig- 
nant temptations of the Pharisees with such a vigorous resistance. 
(Ver. 80 various readings occur in the words ἐν τούτῳ γάρ. On the 
one hand, γάρ has been objected to and corrected by οὖν, while on 
the other, instead of ἐν τούτῳ [801]. πράγματι], ἕν τοῦτο has been 
adopted as more suitable. But the critical authorities are decidedly 
in favour of the ordinary reading, and there is no reason whatever 
to doubt its correctness, if we view the γάρ as occasioned by an 
ellipsis, or rather an apasiopesis. The language of the man is to Le 
regarded as full of emotion, and we may supply what is wanting 
thus: “Speak not so, for herein is a marvellous thing, etc.” (Comp. 
Winer’s Gramm. p. 521, f) The conversation at length concludes 
(ver. 34) with calumnies against the man who faithfully confessed 
his belief, and with the punishment of excommunication, 

(The word ἐκβάλλειν, cast out, by no means signifies merely the 
removal of the man from the council-room ; 1f implies excommuni- 
cation. It is only in the latter sense that the fact appears so im- 
portant as it is represented according to ver. 35. The expression 
ὅλος ἐγεννήθης ἐν ἁμαρτίαις relates to the entire man, so that the 
sense is: “‘ We see that thou art not merely branded by God in thy 
body, but perverse in thy soul.” Some have proposed to take ὅλος 


= ὅλως, “Thou art altogether born in sins,” which in the end 
amounts to much the same thing.) 


Joon IX. 35-38. 483 


§ 5. Discourses OF JESUS AGAINST THE PHARISEES, 
(John ix. 35—x. 21.) 


The new chapter should have begun at ver. 35, since x. 1, ff. is 
connected in the closest manner with what precedes. For the trans- 
ition (35-88) is followed by the important discourse on account of 
which especially the above narrative was introduced. This discourse 
contains, in addition to the polemic element that opposes the Phari- 
sees, a doctrinal one, by which it stands in the most intimate asso- 
ciation with the main design of the Evangelist. Here the Redeemer 
presents himself in his peculiar work in relation to men, and thus 
the sublime portrait of the Saviour which John aims to sketch is 
completed. 

Ver. 35-38.—In these transition verses, the first thing we see is 
the solicitude of the Lord to lead on the healed man, who had so 
faithfully employed the feeble knowledge which he possessed, to 
further attainments. He exhorts him to exercise faith in the Son 
of God, whom he plainly declares himself to be ; whereupon the 
man adores him, in faith, as his Redeemer and Benefactor. 

Here, however, arises the enquiry: what is the meaning of the 
Son of God in this passage ? This passage is one of those employed 
to prove that the meaning of the term in question is ‘‘ Messiah,” 
and we cannot deny that here, as i. 50, this assertion has some ap- 
pearance of truth. For since, according to ix. 17, 30, the blind 
man at first considered Christ to be a prophet, it seems consistent 
‘that he should be led on to the conviction that Christ was more 
than this, viz., that he was the expected Messiah himself. Nay it 
might be said that, since no further doctrinal explanation is added, 
it can by no means be supposed that the healed man can have 
attached to the expression “‘ Son of God” the more profound signi- 
fication of being born from the essence of the Father. He does not 
ask what is the Son of God? but simply ‘‘ who is he ?” (Ver. 36.) 
But plausible as is this mode of argument when the words are 
viewed alone, it loses all it force as soon as we compare the passage 
immediately following, viz., x. 30-36. From this, which is more 
definite and more copious, we must explain the one under considera- 
tion, which is brief and more general. The verses to which we refer 
shew, beyond the possibility of dispute, that the Jews were not ac- 
quainted with the expression ‘‘ Son of God” as a common designa- 
tion of the Messiah, but that on the contrary they regarded it as 
blasphemy, if any one applied the term to himself, and thus made 
himself equal with God. Hence the question ‘‘ who is he ?” a 
person being the subject of discourse, may be taken as meaning : 


484 Jouw IX. 39-41. 


“ What am I to understand by the term Son of Ged?” Nov, 
whether John has withheld from us any of the particulars, or it did 
not appear to the Lord appropriate to give the simple-minded man 
extended doctrinal explanations, it was sufficient that in connexion 
with the beneficent power which the man had already experienced, 
he represented himself as the Son of God, and the man’s faith at 
once embraced the Lord as his benefactor. In conclusion, here again 
we see that the specific nature of faith does not consist in clear and 
precise ideas so much as in susceptibility of heart to the influence 
of heavenly powers. Knowledge advances only as it developes itself 
from faith. 

Ver. 39-41.—Jesus now passes on to the discourse, which was 
intended partly for the Pharisees, some of whom probably hastened 
to the spot when they saw Jesus talking with the healed man. The 
relation of the blind man (whose spiritual eyes, as well as those of his 
body, had been opened) to the spiritually blind Pharisees, is the 
first thing set forth by the Redeemer. Concerning the words ἐγὼ 
εἰς κρίμα εἰς τὸν κόσμον τοῦτον ἦλθον, for Judgment, etc., comp. the 
remarks on iii. 17, and viii. 15. The advent of the Redeemer is a 
source of curse as well as of blessing ; he bestows the latter upon those 
who are humble and believing ; he visits the former upon those who 
are rebellious and unbelieving. According to circumstances, now 
the one aspect of his ministry is presented, and now the other. 

In the words, “‘ that they who see not, etc.,” corporeal blindness 
is associated with spiritual blindness. This mode of expression was 
occasioned by the cure of the man physically blind ; blindness of 
the eye is viewed as a symbol of blindness of soul. 

It is customary, for the purpose of removing that which is con- 
sidered objectionable in the severe language ἵνα οἱ βλέποντες τυφλοὶ 
γένωνται, to interpret ἵνα as employed ἐκβατικῶς and merely denot- 
ing consequence. But it has already been shewn, in the remarks . 
on Matth. xiii. 14 (compared with John xii. 40) that this is con- 
trary to the meaning of the Lord. The infliction of blindness upon 
those who see is viewed as an intended punishment. Greater diffi- 
culties, however, are presented in the subsequent question of the 
Pharisees : μὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς τυφλοί ἐσμεν ; are we also blind 5 Tholuck, 
as well as some of the Fathers, e. g., Chrysostom, here understands 
corporeal blindness, The words taken thus would not convey a 
tolerable sense unless regarded as ironical, thus, ‘‘ surely you do not 
mean to say that we are physically blind!” But, even thus un- 
derstood, they are less pertinent than when referred to spiritual 
blindness. The only difficulty in this view arises from the question 
of the Pharisees whether they are blind, whereas Jesus just above 
called them βλέποντες, seeing, and ver. 41 again describes them sim- 
ilarly. With the interpretation “made blind,’ the following lan- 


Joun X. 1-6. 485 


guage of Jesus, in which he addresses them as persons who sce, is 
not consistent. Hence it seems necessary to say that the vain 
Pharisees, proud of their sagacity, did not rightly understand the 
words of Christ, but only caught the general impression, ‘‘ he speaks 
against us ;” and misconstruing his language, concluded that he 
called them blind, at which they were greatly offended. The an- 
swer of Christ then appears intended to correct their mistake, but, 
at the same time, to shew them that their supposed superiority is 
conducing to their destruction. The first part of this answer is per- 
fectly clear ; the meaning is: “ If you in reality possessed no capac- 
ity for the knowledge of God, it would be better for you ; in that 
case your condition could not be charged upon you as sin.” The 
expression ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχειν must not be understood “to be sin- 
less ;” it means only “to be without blame as regards your present 
position.” Had they been blind they would not have been abso- 
lutely sinless, they would only have been less blameable in their 
sinful state ; being in a kind of unconscious condition, they would 
not have perceived the spirit of Christ moving upon their hearts. 
But as they saw, their unbelief deepened their guilt. Consequently 
the passage must be taken thus : “ were ye blind, ye might, accord- 
ing to the nature of my ministry (which changes the μὴ βλέποντες 
into βλέποντες), obtain assistance from me ; but now, since ye think 
that ye see, ye remain as ye are.” 

The formula “ but now ye say, we see” (viv δὲ λέγετε βλέπομεν), 
is very appropriately selected to point out the peculiarity of their 
state, which consisted in the fact that they actually had a certain 
capacity for the knowledge of God, but in their darkness over- 
estimated it, while they were in reality blind (Matth. xxiii. 24). 
Accordingly it may be accounted that, with all their guilt, they did 
not commit the sin against the Holy Ghost, when they tpposed 
Christ ; they knew not what they did. 

Chap. x. 1-6—With this stood immediately connected in our 
Lord’s discourse, as x. 21 clearly shews,* the comparison of the 
good and bad shepherds. Here the connexion of ideas is so close, 
that the unity of the discourse admits of no doubt; we need 
merely suppose a pause in the conversation, or supply a form of 
transition. It is also to be observed that the conduct of the Phar- 
isees, whose calling was that of pastors, had furnished sufficient 
occasion for the Saviour to exhibit to them the picture of a true 
shepherd. 

This passage is not to be regarded as a complete parable (comp. 
the remarks on Matth. xiii. 1); it wants the form essential to the 
parable, viz., the narration of an occurrence as a fact. Hence 
the term παροιμία (ver. 6) is to be taken only in the signification of 

* Comp. the Treatise by Voretzsch on this section (x. 1-18), Altenburg 1838. 


486 Joun X. 1-6. 


“comparison.” (John never uses the word παραβολή, which may 
also be employed in this general sense. Comp. the Comm. on 
Matth. xiii. 1.) 

To explain the choice of this particular comparison, some ex- 
positors have supposed that Christ uttered the words in the open 
air, within sight of a flock of sheep. This seems far-fetched ; the 
comparison of teachers with shepherds was already so common in 
the Old Testament,* that no special occasion for its selection was 
needed, Besides which, I do not see how it can be supposed that 
what is related verse 25, ff. took place outside the city. As to the 
interpretation of the comparison (verses 1-5), Jesus himself (verses 
7-18) interprets it at length : in verse 7, he expounds those feat- 
ures of the similitude which refer to himself; in verses 8, 10, 12, 
13, on the contrary, those that serve to depict the character of 
false pastors. The individual members of these two perfectly 
correspond. J. Verses 7, 9, Jesus shews what was meant by the 
entrance through the right door, representing himself as being 
this door ; ver. 8, 10, he describes the parallel choice of the false 
way, the climbing over, by which the false shepherds are character- 
ized as robbers, who rob both the sheep of their salvation, and the 
true Shepherd of his sheep. 2. Ver. 11, 14, the Lord describes 
himself as the true Shepherd whom the sheep know; ver. 12, 13, 
on the contrary, he portrays the hirelings, whose voice the sheep 
know not. Accordingly, it would be supposed that the whole simil- 
itude is so clear as to prevent any possible difference of opinion con- 
cerning it ; but such is not exactly the case. In the first place, 
Christ has not explained all the features of the comparison ;—for 
example, respecting the porter (θυρωρός), ver. 8, nothing further is 
said ; hence the question arises, whether this point has a particular 
significance or not. Adhering to the language, according to-the 
interpretation of the comparison given by the Redeemer himself, 
the only hypothesis which presents itself is, that the porter means 
the Holy Spirit, who prepares the way, and brings about the en- 
trance of Christ into the hearts of believers. Still I do not venture 
here to advance anything decisively, since the Lord himself is silent 
on this point. In the second place, it is remarkable that Jesus gives 
prominence to a double reference in the similitude; he represents 
himself first as the door, and then as the shepherd who enters 
through the door. This seems so difficult that it might be thought 
necessary to suppose that, in the first instance, the Saviour had only 
one point of comparison in his eye, viz., the parallel between him- 
self and a shepherd ; and that he did not intend to exhibit the fig- 
urative import of the door until afterwards, when giving the further 


* Comp. in particular the passages Numb. xxvii. 16, 17; Ezek. xxxiy. 1, ff which 
contain the elements of our comparison. 


JOHN X. 7-9. 487 


explanation. But this supposition appears to me by no means 
tenable ; what Jesus says in his exact interpretation, doubtless was 
in his mind when he drew the comparison. The strangeness of this 
double reference at once disappears, if we only keep clearly in view 
the twofold relation involved in the character of Jesus. In his 
human nature he might, on the one hand, represent himself as a 
teacher among others; and on the other hand, he might render 
prominent that part of his nature which admitted of no com- 
parison, and in which he is the Mediator between God and men, the 
only way of salvation to teachers themselves. Hence this twofold 
application of the similitude to Jesus was necessary for the very 
purpose of shewing that in every way it related to him. A mere 
representation of himself as a good shepherd would have led the 
hearers to think of him simply as they did of all other teachers, or 
at the utmost to look upon him as distinguished from them in de- 
gree, but not as specifically different. 

With respect to the individual points, it is scarcely needful to 
remark that, in the Hast, as elsewhere, there were robbers and 
wolves, and that there the shepherds were accustomed, in the well- 
known manner, to drive the sheep to the pasture ; nor is the circum- 
stance of a watch keeping guard over the flock to be considered as 
peculiar to oriental usage. One observation only is requisite, viz., 
that by αὐλή, fold, we are not to understand a regular building, 
but merely an open space enclosed by a low wall. This explains 
the term ἀναβαίνειν, ascend (climb-up), which, if the fold were 
viewed according to our western customs, would be somewhat ob- 
scure. However, we shall connect the elucidation of particular 
points immediately with the interpretation which Jesus himself 
gave to the Jews who did not rightly apprehend the meaning of the 
similitude. 

Ver. T-9.—The Redeemer begins his explanation with the most 
emphatic assurance (ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν) that he himself is the door 
of the sheep (θύρα τῶν προβάτων). As we have already remarked, it 
might seem that this metaphorical allusion was not originally im- 
plied in the similitude, but is to be regarded as a subsequent turn 
given to the comparison in the course of conversation, Ovpa, door, 
as it stands in the comparison itself, might be supposed to mean 
merely a genuine, godly, self-denying frame of mind. But if we 
conceive its import more profoundly, no such distinction is pre- 
sented, which also viewed in itself is utterly untenable. The ex- 
pression does not indicate a doctrine, or a communicable circle of 
ideas necessary to an entrance into the kingdom of heaven ; for in 
that case Christ would have been altogether inappropriately called 
a door, but more properly a θυρωρός, porter, or ὁδηγός, guide. Tf, - 
however, it is remembered that what Christ imparts is actually his 


488 JouHn X. 7-9. 


own nature, we see that he bears the name (as xiv. 6, ἡ ὁδός) in its 
deepest and most fundamental sense. He who does not participate 
the nature of Christ, cannot enter the true fold either as teacher or 
as scholar. This fold certainly signifies the kingdom of God, the 
true community of believers ;* but all teachers must first enter 
this community as believers through the reception of the Divine 
being and nature ; and after this entrance, it is only by ampler en- 
dowments than those generally conferred, as well as by a special 
call, that they become teachers. The antithesis between sheep and 
shepherds, which distinctly presents itself in the similitude, of 
course disappears in the explanation ; for although every sheep 
is not a shepherd, yet every shepherd is, in a certain sense, a sheep 
in the general flock of Christ, and for him no other way of entrance 
avails than that which is appointed for all. The overlooking of this 
circumstance has occasioned much perplexity, especially respecting 
verses 9 and 10; it has appeared unintelligible how Christ, in a 
comparison supposed to treat merely of teachers, could speak of the 
general blessings resulting from faith in the Redeemer ;f a difficulty 
which by cur view is completely set aside. 

The just thing regarded as a consequence of entering through 
the Lord (ver. 9) is σωτηρία, salvation, since he who enters leaves the 
world doomed to perdition. The neat result is the going in and out 
(εἰσέρχεσθαι, ἐξέρχεσθαι). These terms denote the complete and inti- 
mate communion thus instituted between Christ and believers ; re- 
ceiving his life into themselves, they enter into fellowship with God. 
(The mode of expression is formed according to the Hebrew x‘s and 
wsxin, comp. Numb. xxvii. 17.) The last thing mentioned as the 
fruit of this entrance through the Redeemer is finding pasture 
(νομὴν εὑρίσκειν). This phrase, strictly speaking, belongs to the 
similitude, and the proper interpretation of it is not given till ver. 
10, in the words ζωὴν καὶ περισσὸν ἔχειν, to have life, etc. Here (as 
chapters iv. and vi.) Christ is represented as he who satisfies all the 
longings of the soul (hunger and thirst), imparting to man the eter- 
nal itself, the possession of which is in reality the object of all the 
cravings in the human heart. Liicke explains these consequences 
as referring to a blessing upon the ministry ; an interpretation evi- 


* Nevertheless comp. ver. 16, whence it appears that, as far as this passage, the 
kingdom of God is conceived of in the external form of a theocratic institution, although 
in accordance with its true idea, 7. e. as the genuine Israel, alike corporeally and spirit- 
ually. 

+ The difficulty to which Olshausen thus refers may be stated more clearly as follows, 
According to verses 1 and 2, it appears that in verses 9 and 10 the Saviour is speaking of 
shepherds or teachers, and of the blessings which they obtain from him. Hence it would 
seem strange that in describing these blessings he should mention only such as are en- 
joyed by all his flock. This difficulty is entirely obviated by Olshausen’s remark, that iz 
the fold of Christ all the shepherds are sheep.—TR. 


Joun X. 8-10. 489 


dently in the highest degree forced, and proceeding merely from his 
excessive solicitude to preserve the distinction between the shep- 
herds and the sheep. 

Ver. 8-10.—Alternating with this description of Christ as the 
door, and of those who enter by it, proceeds the delineation of the 
thieves, who, according to ver. 1, climb over the wall of the fold, 
without passing through the door. Looking at the picture closely, 
we should expect to find these thieves represented as bringing de- 
struction upon themselves, as it is said that those who enter through 
the right door obtain salvation. This, however, is presupposed, al- 
though the description itself only exhibits their destructive influ- 
ence upon others; from such a ruinous effect on others their own 
perdition necessarily follows. This mode of conception enables the 
parallel to be so constructed as to contrast the robbers with Christ. 
While he blesses and brings salvation, they destroy the sheep and seek 
their own aggrandizement. Had the other view—that they prepare 
ruin for themselves—been presented, in that case the contrast would 
have been between them and the sheep who enter the fold. Thus 
it may be seen that, in the nature of the subject, the antithesis be- 
tween the shepherds and the sheep is not and cannot be steadily 
maintained ; and this view perfectly dissipates much of the obscurity 
in the similitude and its interpretation. A very great difficulty, 
however, is involved in the language of ver. 8: πάντες ὅσοι πρὸ 
ἐμοῦ ἦλθον κλέπται εἰσὶ καὶ λῃσταί, all who came before me, etc. 
Many expositors have already remarked that the reading πρὸ ἐμοῦ 
is to be preferred just because of its difficulty. The omission of 
the words may have arisen merely from the passage having been 
employed by the Gnostics to justify their rejection of the Old Tes- 
tament. They explained all who came, etc., as referring to the pro- 
phets of the Old Testament, and thus, as they presumed, they had 
in the language of Christ himself a testimony against the Old 
Testament. But if the words are genuine, the question is—how 
are they to be interpreted? ‘The forced explanations (which are in 
part quite contradictory) that πρό stands for χωρίς, apart from (and 
in this case false prophets would be meant); that it is instead of 
ἀντί or ὑπέρ, instead of (according to which false Messiahs must 
have been intended, who, however, did not make their appearance 
before Christ); or finally, that πρὸ ἐμοῦ, before me, is equivalent to 
πρὸ τῆς θύρας, before the door (in the sense “all who pass by me and 
do not enter through me as the door’), may be regarded as sufii- 
ciently refuted.* At the same time the interpretation supported 

* Voretzsch (in the Treatise already referred to, p. 9 ff.) proposes to solve the diffi- 
culty by taking πρὸ ἐμοῦ as relating, not to the birth of Christ, but to his entrance upon 
iis ministry. He observes that, before this, persons made their appearance who assumed 


authority; and he adduces in particular from Josephus (Arch. xvii, 10, 5, 6, B. J. ii. 4, 2) 
tliree individuals, Judas, Simon, and Athronges. But this solution is opposed by the cir 


490 Joon X. 8-10. 


by the most modern expositors contains doubtful pomts. Appeal 
is made to the present tense (eioé) and thence it is concluded that 
the words refer to teachers who acted in the time of Christ, and 
who, before his entrance upon his ministry, undertook to shew the 
Jows the way to heaven. But in the first place, it would then be 
necessary to restrict the term add and apply it only to the majority ; 
for that no one amongst the Jewish teachers acted faithfully 
and uprightly, according to his knowledge, is scarcely conceiv- 
able, while it is to be remembered that, before Christ’s ministry, 
the higher knowledge which he came to impart could not be 
attained by them. Jn the second place, the words “‘who came be- 
fore me” are not at all compatible with the idea—“ they taught be- 
fore my entrance upon my ministry.” For, the circumstance of 
their coming before them would certainly decrease their guilt ; and, 
if the terms were pressed, it might be asked—are we then to regard 
those bad teachers who did not*begin their operations till after the 
commencement of the Redeemer’s ministry as excluded from the 
charge ? Hence this interpretation is by no means satisfactory ; it 
is the product of an exigency, and is forced into rather,than de- 
rived from the words. 

For my part, I incline towards the view already mentioned, that 
here false prophets, ὦ. ¢., teachers of error, are denoted. It is per- 
fectly true that πρό, before, is never synonymous with χωρίς, apart 
from, but still, by a natural aposiopesis, the sentence to which πρό 
belongs, may involve the idea of χωρίς. Now, in our passage, the 
main idea expressed by the phrase ‘‘come before me,” is that of 
“‘ working without me ;” and if we understand the coming of Christ 
as meaning neither his entrance upon his ministry, nor his birth, but 
his spiritual advent and operations in the mind, the words may 
properly be taken as conveying the sense “‘ false teachers, not called 
and not inspired by God, having no connexion with the Logos.” It 
is only this signification that suffices for the entire discourse. Ac- 
cordingly there is no reason for remaining, as Liicke and Tholuck 
appear to do, altogether in doubt as to the interpretation of this 
certainly difficult passage.* 


cumstance that these personages did not lay any claim to a spiritual character; they dia 
not profess to be either Prophets or Messiahs; their claims were merely external. In- 
deed too much honour is put upon if them they are looked upon as pretenders to the 
throne. They appear, on the contrary, to have been common outlaws. From such men 
Jesus would in no case have expressly distinguished himself. It is self-evident that in his 
lips the expression κλέπται καὶ Anorai has a spiritual reference. 

* The simplest solution of the difficulty seems to be to suppose an obvious ellipsis. 
“All” evidently means “all of similar pretensigns to my own.” ‘The Saviour has 
thus in view not ordinary prophets or religious teachers—of such he could not of 
course say that they were thieves and robbers—but such as assumed to be dhe religious 
teachers and lights of the world—of such he could not but say that they were thieves 
and robbers. The statement is a terse, and in form somewhat obscure, assertion of hig 


JouHn X. 11-16. 491 


Ver. 11-13,—As the second point of comparison, Christ himself 
is further represented as the Good Shepherd, and contrasted with 
the hireling (μισθωτός). The specific feature in the character of the 
true Shepherd is the sacrifice of his life for the sheep, whilst the hire- 
ling, who is not connected with the flock by any real bond (οὗ οὐκ 
εἰσὶ τὰ πρόβατα ἴδια), has merely his own interest in view, and when 
danger approaches, flees. (The wolf is evidently a symbol of the 
Prince of this world, who pursues all the children of God, and 
strives to wrest them from their Lord.) This passage is important, 
inasmuch as, at any rate, it must be classed with those in which 
Christ himself pocnts to his atoning death, (Comp. especially ver. 
17, 18.) It may not indeed have been understood by those who 
heard the discourse, as a distinct declaration on the subject, but 
after the death of the Lord, it necessarily gained the form of a 
prophecy. The contents of these verses appear, in fact, as an ex- 
pansion of the similitude, since that does not contain any definite 
intimations of the sentiments here developed. 

Ver. 14-16.—The purely external character of the connexion 
between the false shepherd and the sheep, their failure to be blended 
into unity of spirit, is again expressed, ver. 13, in order to place the 
contrast of Christ’s intimate union with his people in a still stronger 
light. This relation and its antithesis were set forth with special 
fulness in the similitude itself (ver. 3, 4, 5), and as this was a point to 
which he attached special importance, he exhibited it thus minutely 
also in his interpretation. The close relation between Christ and 
his people is here designated by γινώσκω, I know. That this is not 
to be understood as denoting a merely external and conceptual 
knowledge is indicated by the general usus loquendi of Scripture in 
which γενώσκειν = 555, know, employed in reference to Deity, always 
signifies essential knowledge.* Moreover, in our passage the paral- 
lel which the Redeemer draws between this knowing, and the most 
profound knowledge subsisting between the Father and the Son, 
shews the same thing. (Fora mere detailed consideration of this 
subject, comp. the remarks on Matth. xi. 27.) 

Further, the reciprocal action intimated in the words γινώσκω, 
know, and γινώσκομαι, am known, is not to be overlooked. Whilst 
the knowledge of the Redeemer is the active element—that which 
penetrates with his power and life—the knowledge of believers is 


solitary and unapproached position as man’s spiritual guide and head. It is equivalent 
to saying, I am the only door; all that have come before me as such, all beside me 
claiming to be such, are thieves and robbers. This view dissipates, I think, the whole 
difficulty, besides accounting for the present εἰσίν, ave, on the ground of the universality 
of the statement.—[K. 

* Respecting the knowledge of believers by the Lord, comp. the remarkable language 
of Paul (2 Tim. ii. 19), in which he calls the knowledge of believers, on the part of the 
Redeemer, the seal (σφραγίς) of being and living in God. 


492 JoHnN X. 14-16. 


the passive principle, the reception of his life and light. In this 
reception, however, an assimilation of the soul to the sublime object 
of its knowledge and love takes place ; and thus an activity (al- 
though only a derived one) is developed, which shews itself in obe- 
dience to his commands. At the same time, the reception of Divine 
elements into the mind necessarily presupposes therein a principle 
allied to Divinity, which, when a homogeneous element is presented, 
spontaneously receives it, and, when approached by what is hetero- 
geneous, rejects it. On this account it is said, ver. 5: ἀλλοτρίῳ ob 
μὴ ἀκολουθήσωσιν, ὅτι οὐκ οἴδασι THY ἀλλοτρίων τὴν φωνήν, a stranger 
will they not follow, etc. Thus the blind man was indissolubly 
bound to Christ by his gently enchaining power, while the opposing 
element which animated the Pharisees could not hold him under its 
influence. 

Here, however, the question arises—are we then to consider the 
sheep (ἐμὰ πρόβατα) and the stranger (ἀλλότριοι) so entirely different ἢ 
Were the comparison urged, we might infer from it that Christ di- 
vided men into two parts—the one containing a Divine principle 
which is awakened to action by the manifestation of God in Christ, 
the other, that of sin, which yields to no Divine attraction, but only 
to that of evil. But we have already frequently pointed ont the 
fact that such an absolute difference in men is not in harmony with 
the doctrine of Scripture. (Comp. the remarks on the parables, 
Matthew xiii.) True, in the one class of men is displayed a prepon- 
derance of what is sinful, in the other a preponderance of good ; 
but on both sides a transition to the opposite, by faithfulness or 
unfaithfulness, is possible. It is specially important to bear this in 
mind, when interpreting ver. 16. In this verse the Lord, after 
again mentioning his love to his people—a love faithful unto death 
—proceeds to describe the wide-spread and comprehensive charac- 
ter of his work. His voice vibrates through every fibre of human- 
ity, and where there slumbers a kindred element, there it awakens 
the germ of the higher life. Here the Redeemer certainly had in 
his eye the Jewish nation (the visible form of the kingdom of God), 
as the first fold, and the entire Gentile world as his wider sphere of 
action. As, however, all Jews were not his sheep, so neither would 
all Gentiles be; but from among Jews and Gentiles he would 
gather the susceptible and faithful. These together (after the wall 
of partition, raised by the external law, had been broken down, 
Ephes. ii. 14, ff), would form a new living unity, the true spiritual 
Israel (μία ποίμνη), in which Christ himself is the head (the εἷς 
ποιμήν) ; Whilst those who do not hear the voice of Christ remain 
excluded. Here, therefore, not a word is said about a general union 
of all men, good and evil. The passage John xi. 52, perfectly cor- 
roborates our interpretation. There, those of all nations who are 


Joun X. 17, 18. 493 


attracted by the power of the Divine life are called children of God, 
and Christ is represented as he who unites them all, the συναγαγὼν 
ele ἕν. This abolition of all barriers between Jews and Gentiles 
had already been beheld, with prophetic eye, by the seers of the 
Old Testament. In relation to this subject, Psa, 1xxxvii. is worthy 
of special remark. There Rahab (Egypt), Babylon, Philistia and 
Tyre—the very nations who stood in the most hostile position 
towards Israel—are described as those who are born in Zion, the 
centre of the theocracy. Nor must we overlook the circumstance 
that in xi. 52 this extension of the Redeemer’s work is connected 
with his death ; and thus the passage (comp. also Eph. ii. 14, ff.) is 
parallel with John xii. 32, where Christ, before his crucifixion, says 
that he will draw ail (who hear his voice) unto him, Accordingly 
his death appears as the act of shaking out, of pouring forth his 
power and his life, which, coming in contact with susceptible minds, 
would draw them into the new living community. That which is to 
be imparted to a mass must yield itself up in its individuality, in 
order to be found again in the larger unity.* 

Ver. 17, 18.—On account of this profound connexion of the 
thought with the whole discourse, it is brought forward again with 
special stress in the concluding verses. Three equally remarkable 
ideas now present themselves. The first is that of the voluntary 
sacrifice, already implied in the terms τιθέναι τὴν ψυχήν (985 be), 
lay down the life, but expressed with particular emphasis in the 
words οὐδεὶς αἴρει αὐτὴν an’ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ τίθημι αὐτὴν an’ ἐμαυτοῦ, no 

* In Christianity this sacrifice of the individual to the universal, appears in its ne- 
cessary restriction (viz., so that individuality is not annihilated, but regained in higher 
energy) by means of the resurrection of the body, as the permanent limitation of the 
versonality. Inthe Oriental religions, especially in,Buddhism, and even in the systems 


of the most eminent Mohammedan mystics, the offering up of self is nothing but pan- 
theistic annihilation. Such is the very doctrine of Gelaleddin Rumi, when he sings :— 


God is the universal sea of being! 

All beings, e’en the countless hosts of heaven, 
Are wafted, just like splinters on the ocean. 

‘Is the vast sea of Deity in tempest? 

Then all his splinters dance upon the billows. 

Will he, the Parent-deep, dry up these fragments” 
He throws them to some mountain’s arid summit 
Or, will he merge them in his own abysses? 

Then must they yield as stubble to the burning 


Hence, to be sacrificed to the universal appears to the mystic of the east associated with 
delightful happiness, and accordingly the same poet says: 

Because to die is truly sweet (believe me), 

The Koran doth prohibit suicide. 

To me, death pours out life with pearly brightness. 

And for diversity gives unity 


Comp. Tholuck’s Blithensammlung aus der morgenlindischen Mystik, Berlin, 1825, p. 
110 ἢ and 123. 


494 Joun X. 17, 18. 


one taketh it from me, etc. (Ver. 18.) This idea is very important 
in relation to the scriptural doctrine of redemption. It shews that 
neither a compulsory decree of the Father, nor the power of the 
Evil One, occasioned the death of the Son, but that it resulted only 
from the inward impulse of the love of Christ. The Father, who is love 
itself, permitted that death of love to which the Son devoted himself, 
because it would have been contrary to his nature to prevent the 
highest display of love; but in the will of the Father there was 
nothing compulsory to the Son. This view of the sacrificial death 
of the Lord sets aside many objections against it which have com- 
monly been derived from the argument that God, as love, could not 
deliver the Son to death; the death of Christ is the pure effluence 
of boundless love, which thus displays its very essence in the sub- 
limest form. The second idea is, that the dying Saviour of the 
world himself resumes his life. He ascribes to himself the power 
(ἐξουσία) to resume it, and represents this resumption of it as the 
purpose for which it was laid down (ἦν α πάλιν λάβω αὐτήν), his 
death being designed to destroy death by life (Heb. 1.14). If in 
other instances the resurrection of Christ is referred to the Father, 
whilst here it is ascribed to the Son himself, it is only an apparent 
discrepancy ; for Father and Son are one (ver. 30), and hence the 
nature of the Father lives also in the Son. So far, however, as we 
recognize in the Father the cause, and in the Son that which is 
caused, everything in the Son may be traced to the ordination 
(ἐντολή) of the Father. As the Father is life, so the Son also bears 
it within himself (v. 26), and the life that overcomes the power of 
death—the new life which emerges from the overwhelming darkness 
—is the resurrection (ἀνάστασις). Accordingly the sentiment con- 
veyed, when Christ calls himself the resurrection (xi. 25), is iden- 
tical with the meaning here, although it is the power of the Father 
that produces the effect in him. 

Finally, we observe that the Redeemer, in the words “for 
this cause the Father loveth me,” etc. (διὰ τοῦτο ὁ πατήρ μὲ ἀγα- 
πᾶ, ὅτι κ. τ. λ.), appears to found the bond of love between Father 
and Son upon the sacrifice of the latter. lLiicke (in the first edi- 
tion) endeavours to avoid this idea, by connecting ‘va with the pre- 
ceding words, and translating thus: ‘‘ The Father loves me because 
I so freely yield up my life, that I have power to take it again.” 
But Tholuck has already shewn that this interpretation is forced, 
since it is not at all consistent with the position of the words, and 
moreover, it would require that ἵνα should be taken ἐκβατικῶς, for 
which there is no ground, the resurrection being here viewed strictly 
as the design of the death of Jesus, And further, according to 
Liicke’s interpretation of our passage, the essential difficulty remains 
in that the love of the Father is founded upon the sacrifice of the 


JoHN X. 22, 495 


Son ; and this appears to favour the Socino-arian notion of Christ, 
as a being intimately connected with God by the moral bond of faith- 
ful and willing obedience—but not by unity of nature. This pass- 
age, however, is to be classed with those in which the Lord, in 
speaking of his relation to the Father, places himself, as a man, on 
a parallel with his fellow-men. Jesus does not mean to say that his 
self-sacrificing love and fidelity is anything self-subsistent and dis- 
tinct from God, by which the Father’s love has been deserved and 
gained ; on the contrary, the Son’s spotless nature itself is the 
consequence of God’s eternal love to him, and the communication of 
God’s essence to him. But in order to shew the Pharisees their 
estrangement from God in their love of self, Christ exhibits the 
part of his nature which was necessarily the most intelligible to 
them. 

Ver. 19-21.—The result of these discourses delivered by the Re- 
deemer was again, on the one hand, increased hatred poured forth 
in blasphemous sayings (concerning δαιμόνιον ἔχειν, comp. the Comm, 
on viii. 49, vii. 20), while, on the other, the minds of some were 
effectually wrought upon by the spiritual power displayed in the 
words of the Lord. It is the purpose of John to describe the 
gradual advance of these two opposite effects, as he constantly 
indicates the impression produced by the discourses of Christ which 
he reports. 


§ 6. Feast or Depicarion. 
(John x, 22-39.) 


The Evangelist, without making any remark whatever on the 
further journey of the Redeemer, transports us at once to a new 
feast at Jerusalem, that of the Dedication. The simplest way of 
explaining this connexion with what precedes, is to suppose that 
Christ remained either in Jerusalem or in its neighbourhood. The 
exactness of John’s chronology is here lessened ; for, if he had in- 
tended to maintain chronological precision, he must here have add- 
ed at least a date. The conjecture, that Jesus had not left Jeru- 
salem at all, is especially favoured by the circumstance that ver. 26, 
ff., the werds of the Lord evidently have reference to the foregoing 
similitude of the Good Shepherd, which renders it probable that 
what follows was uttered in the presence of the same persons who 
listened to the preceding discourse, 

This section contains no fresh thoughts, but is in the highest 
degree important in relation to the development of the idea con- 
veyed by the term Son of God. We have already taken opportunity, 
in commenting on the passage y. 18, ff., which is parallel to this, to 


496 JOHN Χ. 22-28, 


shew that the term never occurs merely as name of the Messiah, 
This position is yet more decidedly strengthened by the following 
conversation, the proof contained in it being such that its force 
can scarcely be avoided. 

Ver. 22, 23.—The feast which John here calls τὼ ἐγκαίνια, the 
dedication, was held to commemorate the purification of the Temple 
desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes. In the Hebrew it is termed 
πξ τι, ὁ, 6.) consecration, ἐγκαινισμὸς τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου (1 Macc. iv. 56), 
or καθαρισμὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ (2 Mace. i. 18), or τοῦ ναοῦ (2 Macc. x. 5). 
Josephus (Archeol. xii. 7) calls it τὰ φῶτα, on account of the bril- 
liant illumination kept up during the eight days of the festival. 
The feast fell in the month Chislev (December), to which circum- 
stance allusion is made in the words καὶ χειμὼν ἣν." The rough, 
cold weather induced Jesus to choose a Stoa in order to converse 
with the Jews. This Stoa, named after Solomon, was situated on 
the east side of the Temple, and hence was called στοὰ ἀνατολική, 
In the destruction of Solomon’s Temple it was preserved, and in the 
time of Zerubbabel it was used as a venerable ruin. 

Ver. 24-28.—In this porch Christ was surrounded by Jews of act- 
ive mind, who were attracted by the wonderful phenomenon which 
the Redeemer presented to them, and filled with curiosity, were 
earnestly desirous to comprehend it. Their minds being full of the 
images which the generally prevailing belief associated with the idea 
of the Messiah, they thought that probably this might be realized in 
him. Still they remained in uncertainty, because so many things in 
Christ were not consistent with their notions, and they did not find 
that he supported them in their carnal hopes. rom this tormenting 
suspense they wished to be relieved, and hence the question : ‘‘ how 
long dost thou make us to doubt ?” (ἕως πότε τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν αἴρεις ;). 
(Profane writers also use αἴρειν [only without ψυχὴν] for μετεωρίζειν 
“to leave in uncertainty,” “to strain by hope or fear.” [Comp. 
Liicke’s remarks, Stud. 1834, No. 3.] Markland conjectured αἰωρεῖς, 
which gives the same sense ; but this is not supported by any criti- 
cal authorities.) Christ tells them with sufficient plainness that he 
is the Messiah, but at the same time rebukes their unbelief, which, 
notwithstanding the most evident testimonies of God on his behalf 
(comp. the remarks on v. 36), would not allow them to decide in his 
favour. Jesus shews that they do not belong to his sheep, from the 
fact that his voice—his pure heavenly ministry—could not attract 
them, and found no earnest echo in their hearts. 

The reference in this‘language to the above similitude is obvi- 


* De Wette is quite mistaken in his observation on this passage, that the words χει- 
μὼν ἦν have no reference to the weather, and that, if such a reference had been intended, 
χειμὼν ἐγένετο must have been said (71), Χεϊμὼν ἦν certainly means “it was winter 
time:” but because in the winter inclement weather prevails, it is also certain that the 
terms imply an allusion to the weather. 


Joun X. 29, 30. 497 


ous ; hence it appears to me that the words καθὼς εἶπον ὑμῖν (ver. 
27), which are wanting in the manuscripts B.K.L.M. and other 
critical authorities, are a gloss. De Wette thinks the omission pro- 
ceeds merely from the circumstance that these words were not found 
in the foregoing comparison, and accordingly he says that we must 
here acknowledge an instance of inaccuracy in John’s report. But, 
although the following language does not occur word for word in the 
previous discourse, yet it does in its essential contents. Hence this 
hypothesis is to be rejected as unsound. 

Ver. 29, 830.—The idea that all who are given to the Redeemer 
by the Father (respecting διδόναι, comp. the Comm. on John vi. 37, 
44) belong to him beyond the possibility of being lost, is here en- 
larged upon by Christ, evidently with the melancholy feeling that 
these persons to whom he spoke, and who, in the widest sense of his 
ministry, were contemplated as objects of redemption, would not- 
withstanding be lost, because they had given themselves to another 
power than that of the Good Shepherd. (Comp. the remarks on 
John vii. 44.) The impossibility, however, of true believers being 
lost, even in the midst of all the temptations which they may en- 
counter, is not founded upon their fidelity and decision, but upon 
the power of God. Here the doctrine of predestination is presented 
in its sublime and sacred aspect ; there is a predestination of the 
holy, which is taught from one end of the Scriptures to the other ; 
not indeed of such a nature that a gratia irresistibilis compels the 
opposing will of man, but so that that will of man which receives 
and loves the commands of God is produced only by God’s grace. 
Hence no holy person has ever believed himself to be sanctified by 
anything (least of all by anything resting in himself) except the 
power of grace. Accordingly in our passage God is called the Pre- 
server, and it is not said ‘‘ My true friends keep themselves in indis- 
soluble union with me,” for thus no man would be saved. But 
the designation of the Father as the absolute power (μείζ ὠνπάντων 
ἐστί) evidently has a reference to evil and its Representative, whose 
hostile activity (ἁρπάζειν) appears impotent in contrast with the 
victorious might of Good. 

The Lord, for the sake of throwing light upon his relation to the 
Father, adds the declaration ‘‘ I and my Father are one” (ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ 
πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν), Which forms the centre-point of this entire discourse. 
The idea of Son being necessarily given in that of Father, these 
words express just as much as ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν εἰσι, the Son and 
the Father are one, on which account the Redeemer could justly say 
(without the need of supposing the conversation abridged) ‘‘ because 
I said I am the Son of God” (ver. 36). The primary idea suggested 
by the connexion of the passage is that of power, so that the phrase 
greater than all (μείξων πάντων ἐστί͵, ver. 29) applies also to the Son, 

Vot. Il.—32 


498 Joum'..X)! 31=33. 


But, since we cannot conceive of one Divine property without an- 
other, it follows that the ‘“‘ being one” (ὃν εἶναι) must denote the es- 
sential equality of the Son with the Father. Still, there are entirely 
unprejudiced expositors, such as Lticke and Tholuck, who have 
thought that our passage cannot relate to equality of essence, because 
in other passages John employs the expression ἕν εἶναι, being one, 
respecting the relation of the disciples to himself. (Comp, xvii. 11, 
21, 22.) But in these places we find the significant addition “ as 
also and my Father are one” (καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ Ev 
ἐσμεν). This of itself is enough to indicate that here the sense of 
the expression cannot be essentially different from that which we 
attach to it in the verse under consideration, and a closer view of the 
subject clearly shews that it is not so. For those who would entertain 
the hypothesis that the oneness refers only to unity of awl, not of 
nature—an hypothesis at once Arian, Socinian, and Rationalistic— 
should not forget that true unity of will without unity of nature is 
inconceivable. Hence, if Christ speaks of unity of will between 
himself and his people, this can subsist only so far as such unity of 
will has been rendered possible to them by a previous communica- 
tion of his nature.* The profound idea, that believers are assimila- 
ted to the Lord by the communication of his nature to them (which 
we found, John vi., in the participation of his flesh and blood) here 
appears to have escaped the above-named expositors ; but, this 
being kept in view, it is clear that in the present instance, as in the 
other, the language cannot but reiate to consubstantiality.+ 

In conclusion, it should not be overlocked that ἕν, and not εἷς, 
is employed. The choice of the former expression indicates the 
manner in which we are to apprehend the relation of triality to 
unity in the Trinity. Triality of persons forms a unity of being but 
not of person; the latter mode of speech would not be super-natural, 
but contrary to nature. The most ancient Fathers, as is known, 
were strangers to the view which has obtained since the time of 
Augustine, and is common in the so-called Athanasian creed, which 
asserts a numerical unity of the triality of persons. 

Ver, 31-33.—The Jews quite correctly understood the expres- 
sion as denoting consubstantiality (de Wette discovers in this a mis- 
take of the Jews [!], as if Christ did not in other instances ascribe 
to himself Divine dignity and attributes—and, moreover, here had 
they made such a mistake, he certainly would have removed it with 

* This is acknowledged by Tholuck, in the fourth edition (p. 195) where he remarks 
that to be one, even when used in application to the disciples, denotes not merely an ex- 
ternal harmony of will, but internal fellowship of life, as the source of that harmony. That 
the expression must be used thus is obvious, for the unity of believers with Christ de- 


pends upon the participation of the Divine nature through the communication of his Spirit. 
(Comp. 2 Peter i. 4.) 


{ The same idea is also indicated in the subsequent language of Jesus, John x. 35, f£ 


Tain 54.386. 499 


a word) ; believing, however, not that God had made Christ equal 
to himself, but that Christ had arrogated to himself equality with 
God (ver. 33), they viewed his words as involving blasphemy against 
God. Here it will be worth while to refer to ver. 25, and to deter- 
mine the precise meaning of ‘‘Son of God.” The Jews regarded 
Jesus as an ordinary man (ἄνθρωπος ὧν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν Θεόν), but 
nevertheless thought it possible that He was the Messiah, and saw 
no blasphemy in his open declaration that he was so (ver. 25). How- 
ever, when he called himself the Son of God, they took up stones 
and cried out, “‘ He blasphemes God !” Hence, it is quite incon- 
ceivable that the term ‘Son of God,” among the Jews in the time 
of Christ, was synonymous with Messiah ; on the contrary, it signi- 
fied something higher and superhuman. As, according to earthly 
laws, the son bears the dignity of the father, so the expression “‘ Son 
of God” denotes equality of dignity, and the common national opin- 
ion did not ascribe this even to the Messiah, who was believed to 
be only an extraordinary man (ἄνθρωπος κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν). Hence, the 
term Son of God when connected with the name Christ (as John 1. 
50, vi. 69, ix. 17, 35), isa more precise definition of it, and the com- 
bination is to be understood thus: ‘‘The Messiah, who (according 
to the more profound view) is a manifestation of the Son of God or 
Logos.” If the term had been a common designation of the Mes- 
siah, the defence of Jesus must have taken quite a different form ; 
it would have been requisite for him merely to say this: ‘I only 
answered your question (verse 24), and how can blasphemy be 
involved in my saying that I am the Messiah, whom ye yourselves 
are partially inclined to consider me?” Instead of this, the 
Redeemer, in the first place, again reminds them of his good 
works, and when the Jews reply that they appreciate these, Christ 
adduces an argument from the Old Testament, which sufficiently 
shews that he himself intended this expression to be apprehended 
in the more profound manner. 

Ver, 34-36.—The Lord cites the remarkable passage, Ps. Ixxxii, 
6. In the first place, as regards the form of the quotation, νόμος, 
Jaw, is used in the wider sense, of the Old Testament generally. 
The whole is named by synecdoche from the chief part, viz., the 
Thorah.) The expression occurs in hke manner, John xii. 34, 
xv. 25. Secondly, as to the passage itself, the ad run: ἊΝ 
pod> ΠῈΣ 55 omy obey omen; LXX. ἐγὼ εἶπα, Θεοί ἐστε, καὶ υἱοὶ 
ὑψίστου πάντες, I said ye are Gods, and all Sons of the Most High. 
This juxtaposition of God and Son of the Most High, explains the 
synonymous use of the terms ‘ God” and “ Son of God” by Christ 
in the sequel (ver. 33, 36). The Son partakes the nature of the 
Father, and therefore the Son of God is himself God. Thus the 
Jews concluded, and the correctness of their reasoning is acknowl- 


500 JoHN Χ. 34-36. 


edged by Jesus himself. The only question is as to the applicabil- 
ity of the name of God in certain cases, and this the Redeemer in- 
tends to point out by the citation. The customary mode of inter- 
preting the use of the quotation in our passage (the mode adopted 
by Liicke and Tholuck) is as follows, It is said that the Psalm re- 
lates to judges or kings; that these are called in the Old Testa- 
ment, Elohim, because they were to discharge their duty in the name 
of God; and that hence the Redeemer draws the conclusion : if or- 
dinary kings are called gods, surely the highest king, Messiah, may 
wear this name. We cannot say that ne view 15 ehameresined by 
any actual error. At the same time it is open to the objection that 
the rigidness of the Mosaic Monotheism is incompatible with the 
facility with which the sacred name of God is applied to mortals, if 
the custom of calling kings Elohim had no other foundation than 
the circumstance, that they were to exercise their office in the name 
of God. Who gives to an ambassador the title of majesty, because 
he acts in the name of his monarch? The custom itself, however, 
is indubitable ; compare Exodus xxi. 6, xxi. 8, 28, with Exodus 
xviii. 15, Deut. i. 17, xix. 17. Accordingly, the only question is— 
whence did this extraordinary application of the name Elohim 
arise ? We best ascertain this from Exod. xviii. 15, where it is 
said : exits wad ts “be Nan 5, These words are to be understood 
as referring to the regal and judicial ministry of Moses ; and hence 
it is seen that, τ τ: to the genuine theocratic views God him- 
self is conceived of strictly as the true King and J ndge of Israel, 
who only has his organ through whom he manifests himself. Thus 
the name Elohim, applied to those who are in authority, presup- 
poses a veal union of the person with God ; if this does not exist, 
the name has no truth.* That the Hedeemer intended Ps, lxxxii. 
9 to be understood thus, is clearly shewn ε the language : πρὸς 
ove ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγένετο, to whom the word of God came, This 
form of speech is parallel with the familiar phrase ἘΣ nin> ras ὙΠ} 
“x3n, the word of Jehovah was upon, etc., a. well-known ‘formula to 
mark the source and moment of those higher communications which 
the prophets received. Consequently we are here to understand not 
merely the authorities purely political, but prophets and Dzvinely- 
enlightened men in general, who, according to the theocratic view, 
might also judge, because God, the only true Judge, spoke through 
‘them. All these were termed children of God, because the power 


* In opposition to this, de Wette remarks that a real union between these persons and 
God cannot be supposed, because God rebukes them (where?) as unrighteous. But here 
the language does not relate to concrete individuals, in so far as they express the idea 
imperfectly ; it relates to the idea as such. This idea is, that authorities are called gods, 
not because an office is entrusted to them externally by God, but because it is their duty 
to be organs of the Divine will, which they would necessarily be, even if their own 
hearts were corrupt. (Compare the remarks on John xi. 49-52.) 


Jonn X. 37-89. 501 


and nature of God wrought in them and were manifested by means 
of them. Thus a real parallel subsists between them and Christ 
himself, only that in him the absolute and perfect manifestation of 
God was represented, on which account he is called the Son of God 
absolutely, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, whilst the others (to avail myself of a 
Philonean distinction) were rather called υἱοὶ τοῦ λόγου, sons of the 
Logos. Inthis eminent sense, the Lord here designates himself ὃν 
ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασε, whom the Father consecrated. The expression ἁγιάζειν 
= 777 is here to be retained in the literal and primary signification* 
in which it is used — ἀφορίζειν, “ to set apart from a number,” es- 
pecially for sacred use. For whilst all prophets, and those to whom 
the word of God came, may be called consecrated (ἡγιασμένοι) in re- 
lation to the world, the Messiah is the distinguished One among 
these consecrated ones themselves, and thus pre-eminently the Holy 
One of God (ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν). (Comp. John vi. 69.) In ~ 
order to strengthen the argument, and fasten it upon the hearers, 
Jesus adds : καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή, and the Scripture can- 
not, etc. The meaning of λυθῆναι is here to be understood just as in 
Matth. v. 17, Gal. 11. 18 ; the Scripture, as the expressed will of the 
unchangeable God, is itself immutable and indissoluble, 

Ver. 37-39.—This language of Jesus (comp. the explanation of 
v. 36) is not unimportant, as the means of ascertaining, from his 
own lips, the relation of miracles to the proof which lies in the in- 
ternal and Divine power of his words. It is evident that here two 
kinds of believing (πιστεύειν) are distinguished, the πιστεύειν τοῖς 
ἔργοις, believing the works, and the πιστεύειν ἐμοί, believing me. Now, 
since the latter is represented as to be produced by the former, the 
‘believing me,” appears the higher. It presupposes full suscepti- 
bility to the Divine influence which proceeded from Jesus, and where 
such susceptibility existed, miracles certainly were rather an addi- 
tion to the proof than the proof itself. But where this was want- 
ing, and the impressions of Divine things had to contend with the 
manifold workings of sin—which operated partly from within and 
partly from without—there it was requisite to give such a sign of 
his heavenly mission as should set aside every doubt ; and this was 
the purpose answered by the miracles. Where those also passed by 
without effect, the deadening process was complete, and sin had 
gained the victory. 

Respecting γινώσκειν καὶ πιστεύειν, comp. the remarks on John vi. 
69. Some manuscripts here omit one and some the other idea, the 
arrangement having appeared to many transcribers unsuitable. 
The clause ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ, the Father in me and I in 
him, which expresses the reciprocal action of the love between 
Father and Son, is elucidated in the remarks on xiv. 10. Con- 
cerning ver. 89, comp. the Comm, on vii. 30, 

* Respecting ἁγιάζειν, comp. the particulars on John xii 31 


502 JoHn X. 40. 


§ 7. Toe Rarsina or Lazarus. 
(John x. 40—xi. 57.) 


The last verses of chap. x. form only a transition to the follow: 
ing narrative. The Lord left J erusalem, but did not return to Gal- 
ilee. He went to the other side of Jordan into the neighbourhood 
which John the Baptist had consecrated by the commencement of 
his ministry. Many old friends of the Baptist here collected around 
Christ, and found the words of the Baptist confirmed in him. Al- 
though the latter had not appeared as a worker of miracles, yet 
they were convinced that a prophetic spirit dwelt and operated in 
him. Hence they followed the direction of this spirit, and believed 
in Jesus, to whom John professed to be only a forerunner. (Con- 
cerning ver. 41, compare the observations on i. 27.) 

In the eleventh chapter follows the important account of the 
resuscitation of Lazarus.* From this we take occasion to glance 
again at the nature of that death (comp. the remarks on the re- 
awakening of the young man at Nain, in the Comm. Luke vii. 11), 
upon the acknowledgment of which, in cases of resuscitation, all 
depends ; and we do so, because the precision that characterizes 
this narrative furnishes the highest conceivable degree of historical 
certainty, and hence the most appropriate occasion for the consid- 
eration of this important circumstance. To this day, death is such 
a mysterious event, that instances occur in which, before decompo- 
sition (so often long delayed) has commenced, the physician finds 
himself destitute of all criteria by which to determine whether the 
inanimate condition of the body is real death, or only a profound 
swoon, a trance. How much more must this have been the case 
during the imperfect state of medical science in antiquity, and es- 
pecially in the East, among the Jews, who did not leave their dead 
unburied after sunset! It is therefore vain for us to attempt to 
demonstrate upon external grounds, that the death of those whose 
reanimation is narrated in evangelical history (and gmongst them 
Lazarus) was not merely apparent.| Hence Spinoza (comp. Bayle’s 

* It certainly is extraordinary that this account is wanting in the synoptical Evangel- 
ists. I cannot regard the omission as accidental, or explain it from the circumstance that 
these Evangelists relate’ more especially what took place in Galilee. On the contrary, it 
must have been a definite reason that restrained them from inserting an occurrence which 
excited so much wonder. Perhaps it may be correct to conjecture that it was not wished 
to direct attention to the family of Lazarus while they survived, or even to himself during 


his life. With John this scruple was of no force, because he wrote at a later period, and 
when he composed his Gospel he lived out of Palestine. 

+ This kind of proof is urged against Paulus and Gabler (in the Theol. Journ. vol. iii.) 
by Heubner and Reinhard. But, although they make many excellent remarks, the proof 
is deficient. 


JOHN X. 40. 503 


Lex, under the article Spinoza), when he declares himself prepared 
to abandon his system and to embrace the Christian faith, if any 
one can convince him of the truth of the resurrection of Lazarus, 
well knows that such a proof is impossible to the skeptic—and ac- 
cording to the wise appointment of God τ is intended to be so.* 
For no miracle is designed to compel him who opposes it to believe ; 
it is only meant to confirm in faith him who yields himself to it 
with all the inclination of his soul. To persons of the latter char- 
acter, our narrative on the one hand affords abundant incidental 
evidence, while, on the other, it obviously contains the chief sup- 
port in resuscitations of the dead, viz., the open, unequivocal, de- 
claration of Jesus that Lazarus was dead (xi, 14). The veracity of 
the Lord is the only perfectly sure foundation on which to rest our 
conviction that reanimated persons had been really dead—a fact 
which we cannot establish in any other way. Accordingly,+ where 
the Redeemer himself denies death, we cannot recognize an awak- 
ening of the dead without taking away the most certain basis of the 
very conviction we entertain.{ (Comp. the observations on the 
daughter of Jairus in the Comm. Matth. ix. 24.) 

The form in which the occurrence under our consideration is re- 
lated brings to view a circumstance which in all miracles is specially 
to be noticed. The copious conversations held by Jesus with the 
disciples and the two sisters, clearly shew that in them all the Lord 
designed the advancement of their spiritual life. Indeed we must 
presume that this was the purpose of the transaction even in re- 
gard to Lazarus himself; it were unworthy to suppose that he was 
employed merely as a medium for the benefit of others, We are 
to presume in the man himself sufficient causes to induce such ex- 
traordinary and wonderful proceedings. I am inclined to think 
that his condition was somewhat as follows. Doubtless he was a 
man of high spiritual vocation, on which account the Redeemer 
loved him ; but he may have had severe temptations, and may not 
have attained to the new life of regeneration without difficulty. 

* Tt is true, xi. 39 has been regarded as proving the commencement of the process of 
decomposition, the sure external sign that the animating and preserving soul has depart- 
ed; but the exposition of the passage will shew that the words ἤδη ὄζει cannot be em- 
ployed as proof. 

+ If Paulus and Gabler wish further to prove that Jesus did not regard Lazarus as 
actually dead, foreseeing his resurrection, it is evident that they must do violence to the 
simple phraseology of the text; and, the argument against them is in this respect per- 
fectly victorious. 

1 Yet we are at liberty to apply the same principle in such cases in determining 
what our Lord actually meant by the denial, as in all others. The Gospels are full of 
instances in which his terse emphatic language cannot be taken literally. Had he 
here confined himself to the declaration that Lazarus slep#, it would still not justify the 
inference against all the attendant evidence, that he was not actua!ly dead. Nay, the 


language y. 4, “ This sickness is not unto death,” seems almost precisely parallel with 
the declaration Matth. ix. 24, “The maid is not dead, but sleepeth.”—[K. 


504 Joun ΧΙ. 1-4. 


Hence perhaps he needed a peculiarly powerful impulse, which the 
wisdom of God saw fit to produce in this particular form. The un- 
usually detailed character of the narrative is, no doubt, to be ac- 
counted for by the fact that the occurrence is so intimately con- 
nected with the main theme of John. For, here Christ appears to 
be in reality the life, having the power to overcome death itself in 
its most repulsive manifestation, viz., the physical. Moreover, on 
account of the proximity of Jerusalem, the event involved con- 
sequences of greater importance than attended others of this kind. 

Chap. xi. 1, 2—John, in the first place, describes the scene of 
the action. The family is presumed to be known to the readers, 
and hence the reference to a fact not related till afterwards (xii. 1, 
ff.) Since Jesus so often stayed with these friends, and particu- 
larly during the last days of his life on earth frequently visited them, 
this is very easily explained. It is singular, however, that Bethany 
(situated only fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, comp. ver. 18) is 
called a village of Mary and Martha, not of Lazarus. This might be 
understood as implying that the sisters were owners of the spot : 
but such a view is contradicted by the Jewish constitution, which 
rendered the possession of entire villages impossible. Accordingly, 
this expression is to be taken as denoting nothing more than the 
affection of these sisters for the Redeemer, on account of which 
Bethany was named after them. 

Ver. ὃ, 4—As soon as Lazarus became ill, the sisters hastened 
to apply to him whom they themselves had already often tried and 
proved as a helper in all circumstances of need. It is remarkable 
that the Lord, on receiving the intelligence, affirms: this sickness 
is not unto death (αὕτη ἡ ἀσθένεια οὐκ ἔστι πρὸς θάνατον), whereas 
Lazarus died.* It might be supposed that the disease was not 
of a fatal character at the time when the news was brought to 
Jesus, but became so afterwards. Yet, if we here exclude the 
higher knowledge of the Redeemer, how could he speak in such 
decided terms upon the mere information of the messenger? It is 
far more simple, and more consistent with the whole account, to say 
that the Saviour spoke these words with respect to the resurrection 
which he already beheld in spirit as accomplished, The obscure form 
of the languae was occasioned, as Tholuck justly remarks, by the de- 
sign which Jesus cherished in regard to the sisters. It was his pur- 
pose that they should be perfected in faith; and since Lazarus was 
already dead, when the statement that, according to the declaration 
of Christ, the sickness would not issue in death, reached them, they 
must have felt themselves involved in an inward conflict as to whe- 
ther their exalted Friend had spoken the truth. Tholuck thinks 


* The expression ἀσθένεια πρὸς θάνατον corresponds with the Hebrew το nibh, 
2 Kings xx. 1, concerning the sickness of Hezekiah. "ha 


Jeon ΧΙ. 5-8. 505 


that Jesus, when he uttered these words, had the disciples also in 
view, who, if he had expressed himself plainly respecting the dis- 
ease, and then had waited two days before going to the relief of the 
family (ver. 6), could not have borne the trial. But to me this 
appears Jess probable, because, in order to set them at rest, he 
certainly might have communicated to them his reasons for the 
delay. 

As the design of the sickness, the glory of God (δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ) 
is now mentioned, (comp. ix. 3, where, in a similar connexion, the 
φανέρωσις τῶν ἔργων τοῦ Θ. is spoken of,) it was intended as a cir- 
cumstance by which the glory of the Father should be displayed in 
the Son. At the same time we must not overlook the fact that in 
these words only one part of the object contemplated by the sick- 
ness is exhibited ; for, as we have already remarked, Lazarus could 
not be employed merely asa medium, The great event of his life 
alike belonged to his own spiritual development and was to con- 
tribute to the gradual manifestation of the glory of Christ to the 
world. | 

Ver. 5-8.—For the sake of contrast, the Evangelist places the 
love of Christ to the family of Lazarus as well as to Lazarus him- 
self, in immediate connexion with his delay in Perea ; it is not till 
two days afterwards that the Lord invites his disciples to depart. 
But why did not Jesus immediately hasten as soon as possible to 
afford the family that relief which he intended to give them ? Here 
I agree with Tholuck, who thinks it is not sufficient to say, with 
Liicke, that Christ had found in Pereea such a fertile field of opera- 
tion that he would not relinquish spiritual objects for the sake of 
rendering bodily assistance. For, he might have left some disci- 
ples behind and soon have returned, and thus have neglected 
nothing there. Besides which, the resuscitation of Lazarus cer- 
tainly was to Lazarus himself, to the sisters, and to the numerous 
acquaintances, an occasion of spiritual aid. It was evidently 
designed that, through this manifestation of the glory of God, 
all of them, Lazarus himself included, should grow in the inner 
man. Moreover, verse 15 makes it certain that the Redeemer 
was not detained in opposition to his wish ; on the contrary, he de- 
ferred the journey. The only correct view must be that which 
regards the delay as designed to assist the faith of those concerned 
in it. Jesus here acted much as he did in the case of the Canaan- 
itish woman, with a view to give a powerful stimulus to the energy 
of the spiritual life.* 


* De Wette in his Andachtsbuch (Berlin, 1825) vol. i. p. 292 ff, remarks, in opposi- 
tion to this that Jesus never designedly and of his own accord occasioned or magnified 
his miracles, and hence it must have been something external that detained him. The 
game sentiment is expressed in his Commentary on the passage. But let it be kept 


506 Joun XL 9, 10. 


John now reports an immediate conversation between Christ 
and the disciples, who endeavour to dissuade him from going to 
Judea. Their love for Lazarus certainly was active enough to in- 
duce the wish that Jesus could be with him ; perhaps they thought 
the danger was not so imminent, and that the Lord could do Laza- 
rus good at a distance, by his will, (Νῦν is here equal to ἀρτίως in 
the signification “just now,” “recently,” as it occurs also in profane 
writers.) 

Ver. 9, 10.—The Lord answers the warning of tie disciples not 
to put himself in peril, by a mysterious declaration, which, however 
it may be taken, is not in perfect harmony with the connexion. If, 
with Liicke and others, we adhere strictly to the words “ are there 
not twelve hours of the day ?” (οὐχὶ δώδεκά εἰσιν ὧραι τῆς ἡμέρας ;) it 
is true that this expression is eminently appropriate as a mode of 
designating the time for labour, during which we may quietly pur- 
sue our calling, so that the meaning is parallel with the passage ix. 
4-5—“*T must work while it is day.” But, in the sequel, the words 
“walk in the night” (περιπατεῖν ἐν τῇ νυκτί), are not at all appli- 
cable to the Redeemer, and we must then regard ver. 10 merely as 
an expansion of the metaphor, having no particular significance, but 
introduced simply as the antithesis to ‘‘ walking in the day’—a 
supposition not in harmony with the depth of thought contained in 
the figurative discourses of Christ. On the other hand, if we at- 
tempt, with Chrysostom, Calvin, and Lampe, to give a significance 
to these last words, by referring them to the disciples, to whom 
Jesus represents himself as the light that illumines their path, to 
this view, again, the “twelve hours’ do not adjust themselves. 
Liicke says that, besides this, any reference of the light to Christ, 
as the Light of the world, is inadmissible, because it is expressly 
said : φῶς τοῦ κύσμου τούτου, light of THIS world. But in this, 
he has overlooked the circumstance that this appendage relates only 
to the comparison, whereas, in its interpretation, the sun is evi- 
dently to be regarded as an image of something higher. The ob- 
scurity in the language is thus made to reduce the thought to a 
mere triviality, as if it were said: “one may travel more safely 
and peacefully by day than by night ;” a remark which could 
not fall from the lips of Christ in a moment when his soul was 
occupied with the loftiest thoughts, Hence nothing remains (as 
we have already remarked on ix. 4, 5, compared with xii. 35, 
36) but to suppose that the words of the Saviour contain more 
than one reference.* He again conceives of himself in a two- 


in view that the Redeemer did not delay of his own accord, but from the inward im- 

pulse of the Father, without whose will he did nothing—and the objection falls to 

the ground. No one can find fault with this but he who regards Christ as a mere man. 
* Here again De Wette considers it contrary to the rules of exposition as well as to 


JoHn XI. 11-16. 507 


fold view ; first, as standing fraternally on a parallel with men, 
and fulfilling his appointed day’s work ; secondly, in his higher dig- 
nity, as the spiritual illuminator of the world, as the promoter of 
everything good and beautiful upon earth. In the first words, the 
former reference predominates ; in the last, the latter. Hence the 
first sentence relates chiefly to the Lord; the latter to the dis- 
ciples. With their anxiety concerning the Lord, there was also 
a mixture of fear for themselves (as is clearly shewn by verse 16, 
whence it appears that they apprehended death from the journey 
to Judea) ; in allusion to this, Christ directs their attention to the 
fact that being with him, in the lustre of his light, they would have 
nothing to fear. 

A reference to enemies as those who, creeping in the dark, chose 
crooked paths (according to which De Wette even thinks that an 
allusion to Matth. x. 16, is to be discovered in our passage), is by no 
means to be supposed, such a reference being entirely unsuited to 
the present connexion ; the “‘ walking in the night,” seems intended 
to admonish the disciples that they should never walk without him 
and his light, but with him everywhere and at all times. This 
view—that in our verses two senses are blended—affords the great- 
est facility in explaining the difficult clause: ὅτε τὸ φῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν 
αὐτῷ, because there is no light in him. The simile, strictly carried 
out, requires “to him” (ai7@), and that interchange of preposi- 
tions and constructions, which has long been a favourite practice, 
would put ἐν αὐτῷ for αὐτῷ: However, the literal sense is to be 
rigidly retained, and in these words we may discover the transi- 
tion from metaphorical to literal language. (Luke xvi. 8, a sim- 
ilar transition from figurative to literal language occurs.) In the 
simile, of course the light is to be regarded as operating externally ; 
but, in the solution, “light” means that energy which internally 
enlightens men concerning God and his relation to God ; and this 
is precisely what is indicated by ἐν αὐτῷ, in him. 

Ver. 11-16.—After the expiration of two days (ver. 6), the Re- 
deemer openly announced to his disciples that which he knew in the 
Spirit. (We are not to suppose that fresh messengers were sent 
with the intelligence of the death ; if such a circumstance had taken 
place, so carefully accurate as John is in the narrative before us, he 
would not have omitted to mention it.) He told them that Lazarus 
was dead, and that he was going to awaken him. But as Jesus 
called death sleep, the disciples thought he meant literal sleep, and 
looked upon it as a favourable sign ; doubtless they adduced this as 
the spirit of the Gospel, that we should attach more than one sense to a declaration of 
Christ ; whilst in other passazes he himself maintains the very thing to which he here 
objects. Surely we ought not to pronounce the profound language of Christ destitute of 


that which is readily acknowledged in a Shakspeare ora Jean Paul! (Comp. the expos* 
tion of John iv. 12 and xiv. 18. 


508 Joun XI, 11-16. 


an argument to shew that the perilous journey he proposed was un- 
necessary. It was not till then that Jesus said in unambiguous terms 
(παῤῥησίᾳ) : Lazarus is dead (λάζαρος ἀπέθανε), at the same time, 
however, adding that his death was no loss, but a circumstance cal- 
culated to heighten their joy, since it would be the means of advan- 
cing their faith, Still, in the minds of some at least of the disciples, 
the fear of death was not yet completely overcome. Thomas* 
(comp. the remarks on Matth. x. 3), convinced that their death, like 
that of their Master, was inevitable, exclaimed : ἀποθάνωμεν per’ 
αὐτοῦ, let us die with him. These words certainly express great 
fidelity, but, at the same time, they indicate weakness of faith, and 
that exaltation of external circumstances and relations above the 
victorious power of the Spirit, which generally characterizes this 
apostle. (Comp. the remarks on John xx. 24, ff.) 

There are only two things remaining in this passage that need 
special attention, viz., the term κοιμᾶσθαι, sleep, and its correspond- 
ing ἐξυπνίζειν, awaken. As regards the first expression, its wse to 
denote death is well known. (Comp. Matth, xxvii. 52; Acts vii, 
60; xiii, 86; 1 Cor) vii. 39, xis 30, xy. Ὁ5-18:;.1 .Thess:. ἵν: 139. 
The only question is as to the sense in which it is here used. It is 
very natural to think merely of the external similarity between a 
corpse and the body of a person asleep, and indeed it is probable 
that this gave rise to the usus loquendi of which the passage before 
us furnishes an instance. But it certainly appears that something 
more than this outward resemblance jis included, though to most 
persons it may be but obscurely, in the representation, viz., the idea 
that the dead person is also spiritually in a condition similar to 
sleep. Without conveying the idea of entire spiritual inaction, it 
may be said that the separation of the soul from the body, as the 
necessary medium of its operation, must produce in it a certain de- 
pression of consciousness; on which account, also, the life of the 
soul without the body till the resurrection, according to the doctrine 
of Scripture (which knows of no immortal life purely spiritual and 
apart from the resurrection of the body), is a mere state of tran- 
sition. Finally, the term ἐξυπνίζειν is not found elsewhere in 
the New Testament. (Acts xvi. 27, ἔξυπνος occurs in the ordinary 
sense.) It is employed simply on account of the metaphorical 
ὕπνος ; it cannot be used directly for ἀνιστᾶναι. It occurs also Job 
xiv. 12, only in connexion with ὕπνος, and is figuratively applied to 
the resurrection : ἄνθρωπος δὲ κοιμηθεὶς od μὴν ἀναστῇ, ἕως ἂν ὁ οὐρανὸς 
οὐ μὴ συῤῥαφῇ, καὶ οὐκ ἐξυπνισθήσοντωι ἐξ ὕπνου αὐτῶν. 


* This is the only passage in the New Testament where the term συμμαθητής occurs, 

+ Tholuck justly observes that the perfectly undesigned occurrence of such a psyche- 
logical conformity in the characters is an important circumstance in support of the histors 
ical credibility of John. 


JOHN XI. 17-27, 509 


Ver. 17-20.—In the verses that follow, a detailed account is 
given of the interview of the Lord with the two sisters. When 
Jesus reached the neighbourhood of Bethany, the deceased had lain 
four days in the grave. The proximity of Jerusalem had induced 
the presence of many friends, who were consoling the afflicted sur- 
vivors. (Ver. 19, ai περὶ Μάρθαν καὶ Μαρίαν, according to a known 
Greecism, cannot mean any others than the persons named. Comp. 
Winer’s Gramm. p. 384. Still, it must here be said, that mourners 
had already come from the town itself, and that others from Jerusa- 
lem came in addition to them.) Mary was in the house with these. 
Martha may have been occupied out of doors ; at all events she first 
heard of the arrival of Jesus, and immediately hastened to meet him. 
Here, again, as in the case of Thomas, the known character of the in- 
dividuals (the sisters) is stamped upon the narrative ; Martha appears 
the more prominently active, Mary quiet and retiring. Mary did 
not know that Christ had arrived. He paused before he came to 
the town (ver. 30), probably because he was near the place of inter- 
ment ; and Martha, in announcing to Mary that Jesus was come, 
said: “the Teacher is come” (ὁ διδάσκαλος πάρεστι). This remark 
would have been unsuitable, had Martha known that Mary had 
already been informed of the Lord’s arrival ; in this case Mary 
also would have hastened to Jesus. : 

Ver. 21-27,—The Evangelist, in the first place, reports the con- 
versation of Jesus with Martha, which she opens with the avowal of 
her belief that if he had been present Lazarus would not have died. 
(Mary expresses herself in like manner verse 32.) Doubtless she 
thought that then God would have heard the prayer of Jesus, and 
would have restored Lazarus. On the power of this prayer, she 
proceeds to say, she sti// rests her hope (ver. 22). The precise ob- 
ject, however, to which she refers as yet within the reach of the 
prayer of Christ, is not evident ; for, according to verse 39, it ap- 
pears that she had not thought of a resurrection; and yet we 
can here scarcely suppose anything of a different kind, as Christ 
speaks of the resurrection immediately afterwards. Doubtless the 
correct mode of explaining the matter is to view the mind of 
Martha herself as oscillating between hopes and misgivings ; first 
the former animated her soul, then the latter gained the ascend- 
ancy. Hence, when the Lord mentions the resurrection, she first; 
understands the general resurrection at the last day, and finds, by 
the reference to this, her desire but imperfectly satisfied ; accord- 
ingly the possibility of an immediate awakening now floats before 
her. Meanwhile her longing to have the dear deceased restored to 
her certainly involved much that was material and personal, which 
it was necessary to remove, that the resuscitation of the brother 
might have its due effect upon her. Had she received Lazarus back 


510 JoHn XI, 21-27. 


from the jaws of death merely as a mortal, there would still have 
remained the distressing and constant apprehension that he would 
soon be snatched from her again by the same foe. Hence it was 
needful that she should recover him in such a manner that it would 
be impossible to lose him, and thus become rooted with him in the 
element of the imperishable. To this her attention is directed by 
the profound language of the Redeemer. He leads her thoughts 
from the departed brother to the present Saviour, the Saviour 
both for Lazarus and for herself, and shews her, that in him alone 
she may obtain the perfect remedy against death, both corporeal 
and spiritual. 

The principal thing to be noticed in the important verses 25 and 
26, is the relation between life and resurrection. As we have already 
remarked on John 1. 4, the two expressions are properly synonymous, 
As Christ is called the Life, not merely because he makes alive 
(ζωοποιεῖ, John v. 21), but because, as the source of life (7. e., of true 
being), he zs life ; just in like manner he is called the resurrection, 
not merely because he raises the dead, but because he actually ¢s 
the resurrection. The resurrection, however, is nothing else than 
life in conflict with death ; life, viewed by itself, denotes being 
without the antagonist principle (that which is to be vanquished), 
while, in the resurrection, life appears as that which destroys death 
(in itself and others). It is in this victorious aspect that life is ex- 
hibited in the person of the Lord. The transfer of his living powers 
is effected by means of faith ; where this dwells (physical) death 
does not prevent the manifestation of spiritual life ; where this is 
wanting, there is spiritual death as well as physical. 

Some difficulty presents itself respecting the connexion of ver. 
26 with ver. 25, especially in the added πᾶς ὁ ζῶν καὶ πιστεύων, every 
one that liveth and believeth. If we understand living as relating to 
physical life, this gives rise to the sense that the believer does not 
die physically at all; if the expression be understood spiritually, 
then the words οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα are not suitable, because 
they denote the same thing as those preceding. Hence the words 
ζῶν καὶ πιστεύων are best taken as ὃν διὰ δυοῖν, in the signification 
“‘he who vitally believes,” etc. But then verse 26 is completely 
identical in sense with the foregoing ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ, κἂν ἀποθάνῃ, 
ζήσεται, he that believeth, etec.; whereas the passage appears 
to contain an advance in the meaning; for, first, it is said: 6 
πιστεύων ζήσεται, he that believeth shall live (κἂν ἀποθάνῃ is added 
merely by way of giving force to the statement), and then the Sa- 
viour declares : ὁ ζῶν, he that liveth (i. e., he who through faith has re- 
ceived lite, so that πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ is appended simply for the sake 
of explanation) οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, shall never die. These 
last words express the absoluteness of the life which Christ imparts, 


Joun XI. 28-36. 511 


in the highest form of its manifestation, the vanquishment even of 
physical death. In reply to the question of Jesus—whether Mar- 
tha believes this—she proves that she has thus believed and still 
‘thus believes (πεπίστευκα), from the fact that she regards him as the 
true Messiah in the highest sense of the word, as the Son of God, 
the Revealer of the Father. (Respecting υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ in union 
with Χριστός, comp. the remarks on Luke 1, 8ὅ, As in this instance 
Χριστός stands first, the passage contains no difficulty.) 

Ver. 28-32.—Now follows the conversation of the Lord with the 
other sister, Mary, whom Martha, deeply impressed by the animated 
words of Jesus, went and called, without the Jews who were present 
learning the reason of her withdrawment. (Comp. the observations 
on ver. 17.) They conjecture from her departure that she is gone 
to the grave of her brother, in order to weep over it, as was usual 
among the Jews,* who, during the first few days after death had 
occurred, were accustomed to visit the grave several times a day. 
When Mary sees Jesus, she throws herself, under the impulse of her 
feelings, at his feet, and cries out, as Martha did (ver. 21): κύριε, εἰ 
ἧς ὧδε, οὐκ dv ἀπέθανέ μου ὁ ἀδελφός, Lord, if thou hadst been here, 
etc. From this close accordance of the first words which both the 
sisters addressed to the Lord, we may gather with what longing de- 
sire they had awaited the arrival of their Divine Friend. 

Ver, 33-36.—The intense emotion of Mary went to the hearts 
of the Jews who had hastened thither ;—they wept, and the Re- 
deemer, far from Stoical unconcern, wept with the weepers (Rom. 
xii. 15)f. This sympathy with the common feeling of those pre- 
sent awakened in the minds of the Jews sentiments of approbation, 
and they exclaimed : ἴδε, πῶς ἐφίλει αὐτόν, Behold haw he loved him. 
The superiority of Christian morality (displayed in that warm and 
lively sympathy with the griefs of others which here shewed that 
Jesus was a true man) to the frigid inanimateness of Stoicism needs 
no argument to demonstrate it; but it may be questioned whether 
the sorrow of Jesus in this case was altogether real. He certainly 
knew that he was about immediately to awaken Lazarus, and in- 
deed had said, ver. 15: “I am glad that I was not there’—how 
then could he weep? This difficulty is less regarded by expositors 


* Comp. Geier de luctu Hebr. (Francof. 1683) pag. 183, seq.; where it is also stated 
that other nations practised similar customs. 

+ Here we may compare the excellent remarks of Lange in the Stud, 1836, No. 3, p. 
713, ff He thinks ἐμβριμᾶσθαι is to be understood in a sense altogether general, in 
denoting powerful emotion, in which sympathy, pain, indignation, and even joy in the 
anticipation of his great victory were united. Still I think it cannot be denied that the 
tears of Jesus indicate the decided predominance of pain in the stateof his mind. It is 
true De Wette is of opinion that to the enlightened understanding every sensation of 
pain appears of no consequence; but this allusion belongs purely to pagan Stoicism and . 
not to Christianity. ; 


512 JOHN XI. 37-39. 


than it deserves to be, for, ver. 38, it is said again: ἐμβριμώμενος 
ἐν ἑαυτῷ κι τ.λ. It has been thought enough to shew that ἐμβρι- 
μᾶσθαι has not only the signification of being angry, but that 
of being grieved. The former certainly does not suit the con- 
nexion of our passage, for the Jews had done nothing that could 
excite anger ; while the opinion of Chrysostom, that Christ was 
angry with himself because he had shed tears, evidently arose from 
Stoical principles, and is utterly inappheable to the case. How- 
_ ever, the signification ‘‘ to mourn,” as belonging to ἐμβριμᾶσθαι, which 
denotes any powerful agitation of the mind, ik sufficiently certain, 
as it corresponds with the Hebrew 933, which likewise unites the 
two senses. (Comp. Gesenius in his Lexicon sub verb.) The diffi- 
culty involved, as we have remarked, in the expression of sorrow on 
the part of Christ, is solved in a simple manner, if we say that the 
object of his sorrow was not so much the single instance of the death 
of Lazarus (for by his reanimation this immediately became a 
source of joy), as it was death and its horrors in general, as the 
wages of sin, in the power of which Lazarus was still held after his 
resurrection, so that he twice tasted death. The spirit of Christ 
always comprehended the whole extent of everything presented to 
view, and hence the grief occasioned by a single case brought before 
him the entire range os the calamity, and the contemplation of this 
furnished abundant reason why the Lord should with perfect sin- 
cerity participate the sorrow of those around him, because the 
general suffering was by no means removed in the isolated circum- 
stance of the awakening of Lazarus. Hence it is not without cause 
that the Evangelist here says : ἐνεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι, not τῇ ψυχῇ. 
(Comp. the remarks on John xiii, 21, ἐταράχθη τῷ πνεύματι = ἐτάραξεν 
ἑαυτόν in our passage.) The latter expression would have conveyed 
the idea of individual human excitement, too much to have been 
suitable here. Should it be said that Jesus wept only as the 
Son of Man, but that as the Son of God he knew Lazarus would 
be resuscitated, this would lead to a Nestorian separation between 
the Divine and the human in Christ. What Christ knew in his 
earthly life generally, he knew also in his human consciousness, 
which we cannot suppose to have been, so to speak, for some mo- 
ments annulled, 

Ver, 37-39.—At the sight of the Saviour’s tears, even some of 
the Jews remark that surely Jesus—the great worker of miracles, 
he who gave sight to the man born blind—could (by his prayer, ver. 
22) have prevented the death of Lazarus, There is no ground 
whatever for attributing this observation to inimical motives, as if 
intended to intimate ‘that probably even the cure of es blind 
man was no real miracle ; for the circumstance that some, accord- 
ing to ver. 46, reported the resuscitation of Lazarus to the Phari- 


JoHN XI. 40-42, 513 


aees, may be viewed as the mere result of the pleasure felt in 
communicating interesting news. Meanwhile the Lord came to the 
place of interment, and directed that the stone which closed it 
should be removed. The Jewish graves usually were cavities cut 
out in rocks, within which’ smaller spaces were formed in the sides 
for the reception of bodies (after the manner of the Egyptian graves 
in which mummies were deposited); the external aperture was 
closed by a fragment of rock. Upon these words the unbelief of 
Martha is excited in a conspicuous manner. She does not think of 
the possibility that her beloved brother can be reanimated ; she 
only fears that, at the sight of putrefaction, the image of him which 
she carries in her heart may be marred ; hence she suggests that 
the tomb should not be opened. The words ἤδη ὄζει, he already 
smelleth, are not to be understood as expressing a fact ascertained 
by experience, “‘ I know that he has already become offensive ;” but 
simply as a conjecture derived from the length of time during which 
he had laid in the grave.* Accordingly, this passage cannot be em- 
ployed as a proof that Jesus resuscitated the already decomposed 
body of Lazarus. As there is no express statement to that effect, 
to maintain that such was the case would involve a designed aug- 
mentation of the miracle; and this the expositor must guard 
against. It is far simpler to suppose that, as cases frequently occur 
in which decomposition does not commence till very late, the body of 
Lazarus, just because it was to be reanimated, was in the providence 
of God preserved from corruption. In fact, the revivification of a 
corpse already putrid would give to the miracle a monstrous charac- 
ter ; for even in the general resurrection of the dead, it is not the 
corruptible body that rises, but the incorruptible. (Τεταρταῖος oc- 
curs in the New Testament only here. ‘The profane writers often use 
it, like τριταῖος, πεμπταῖος, and similar forms. Comp. the passages in 
Schleusner’s Lex. sub verb.) 

Ver. 40-42.—The Lord now rebukes the expression of unbelief 
on the part of Martha, and reminds her of what he had said pre- 
viously (ver. 25). It is true that he did not there employ the very 
words “‘thou shalt see the glory of God,” but still the subject on 
which he then spoke was the ability of faith, as the means, to ap- 


* The utmost that is required is to grant the possibility of the words 767 ὄζει being 
uttered as the result of experience; in no case, however, can they be taken as contain- 
ing a proof that the body of Lazarus had already become putrid. Since this is evi- 
dently not implied by the words, to maintain that they furnish a sure proof of the death 
of Lazarus, only renders the miracle in general suspicious. [To maintain that they fur- 
nish a sure proof of the death of Lazarus is indeed unauthorized, as Martha spoke very 
probably rather of what ordinarily took place, than of what she actually knew. But 
this cannot render the miracle suspicious if we admit the veracity of Jesus or of John. 
We have all the reason to believe that there was a raising of the dead, that we have that 
there was a raising at all, forthe account is given expressly and only as a raising of the 
doad.]—[K. 

Vou. I.—33 


514 Joun ΧΙ, 43-48. 


»ropriate the plenitude of the powers dwelling in Christ. Hence 
we need not exactly assume that that conversation is reported in 
an abbreviated form.—After the removal of the stone, the Saviour 
breaks forth into prayer, and that in a truly sublime manner ; he 
does not ask that his desire may be fulfilled, but gives thanks that 
it is granted, and even this he does, not on his own account, but for 
the sake of those around him. It has been considered strange that 
Jesus uttered this declaration in the presence of the assembly. It 
might be said that he did it in a lower tone, as in fact at ver. 43, it 
is expressly stated that he afterwards raised his voice. But, xii. 30, 
a similar sentiment is directly addressed to the people. Accord- 
ingly we must say that it was the very design of Jesus to make 
the people acquainted with his position in reference to this oc- 
currence. 

Ver, 43-46.—_Upon the summons: “Lazarus come forth” (Agape, 
δεῦρο ἔξω), the dead man steps forth from the grave just in the 
state in which it was customary to bury corpses. (The κειρίαι or 
ὀθόνια [xix. 40] were narrow strips of linen with which, as in the 
case of mummies, every limb was bound separately. Hence the 
possibility of movement is nothing extraordinary.—Zovddpior, after 
the Latin sudarium, has passed into the later Hebrew, in which it 
is called -3:5 or xot3». Here it signifies the cloth that was wrapped 
round the forehead of the deceased [Luke xix. 20; Acts xix. 12]. 
Ὄψις stands for πρόσωπον = maya, as Rev.i.16. The occurrence 
was so overpowering that even many of the Jews believed, although 
at the same time their faith appears to have consisted in the exter- 
nal mastery of their minds by the omnipotence of the miracle rather 
than a spiritual surrender to the influence of the Redeemer, For 
even admitting that they were not actuated by hostility in reporting 
the new wonder to the enemies of Christ, yet their eagerness to go 
and chatter about it evinces that it had taken no deep inward hold 
of their minds,* 

Ver. 47, 48.—To shew at once the effect of this amazing miracle, 
John here tells us what the Sanhedrim, at the suggestion of Caiaphas, 
resolved in consequence. (Respecting the Sanhedrim, comp. the re- 
marks on Matth. xxvi. 57; John xviii. 12.) They feared lest the 
number of adherents to Jesus might prodigiously increase, and thus 
destroy their authority, That this was the fundamental sense of the 
words ἐλεύσονται οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι, καὶ ἀροῦσιν ἡμῶν καὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ τὸ ἔθνος, 
the Romans will come, etc., is clear ; but the special meaning is ob- 

* Respecting Lazarus, history says no more. Quadratus, however (in Euseb. H. E. 
iv. 3), relates that in his time (the beginning of the second century) many of those whom 
Christ’ raised from the dead were still living. Quadratus says the same thing also con- 
cerning many of those who were healed. Nothing can be more opposed to the theory 


of myths than such accounts by means of which we are placed so completely on histori 
cal ground. (Comp. also the statements of Papias in Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.) 


JoHN XI, 49-52. 515 


scure. It does not appear how the members of the Sanhedrim could 
think that the extension of the Redeemer’s influence could bring them 
into political collision with the Romans ; they surely must have 
mown that he altogether abstained from all external political ac- 
tion. Still it appears that the notions of these men concerning the 
true design of Christ were but very confused. Perhaps they in 
reality believed that he was only waiting for the right moment to 
rise as Messiah against the Romans ; in such an experiment, how- 
ever, they did not place confidence, but thought the legions would 
overpower him with their adherents, and that then the Romans, 
charging the fault upon them, would destroy whatever vestiges of 
their independence yet remained. At all events it was by this course 
of thought that they endeavoured to palliate their wicked machina- 
tions, in their own minds and in the view of others. 

(πος in connexion with ἔθνος can only signify “country.” Had° 
it referred to the Temple, it would have been necessary to add ἅγιος 
or οὗτος. (Comp. Matth. xxiv. 15, with Acts xxi. 28.) Just in like 
manner in the Hebrew, pips alone cannot denote the Temple, al- 
though ὥπρ tips, “place of holiness,” “sanctuary,” certainly does. 
—Aipewv, which properly applies only to τόπος, by means of a zeugma, 
has reference also to ἔθνος.) 

Ver, 49-52.—Caiaphas (respecting his person and official posi- 
tion, comp. the Comm. on Matth. xxvi. 57; John xvi. 12), now 
came forward for the first time, with the politic but diabolically 
malevolent advice to despatch Jesus out of the way.* The hypo- 
critical language, that it was a matter of importance to save the 
nation, was based upon the ambitious lust of power cherished by 
Caiaphas himself and his Pharisaic confederates. They sought to 
maintain the kingdom of lies and hypocrisy in opposition to purity 
and truth. They felt that one of the two must fall! The influ- 
ence of this powerful leader at once carried with him the whole col- 
lege, and the first authorities of the people of God now entered upon 
deliberations (ver. 58) as to the manner in which they might put 
the Holy One of God to death, without incurring danger to them- 
selves from the populace. (The phrase οὐκ οἴδατε οὐδέν, ye know 
nothing, is to be taken as a form of censure, conveying a repulse, 
somewhat in the same manner as τί ἐμοὶ καὶ oof; John ii. 4. Others 
regard μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος, 1 Tim, vi. 4, as parallel with it, and ascribe 
to it the signification “ to be weak in mind ;” but this certainly is 
mistaken. Those Gnostics whom Paul rebukes were not weak, they 
rather misused their strong minds. Prov, ix. 13 is more appropri- 
ate for comparison, although even there the alleged signification is 
not to the purpose. 

The interpretation which John gives of these words of the High 


* Concerning εἷς τίς comp. the observation on Mark xiv. 51. 


516 JoHN XI, 49-52. 


Priest is in the highest degree interesting, since he sees therein the 
death of the Lord as the true sacrifice for the people, nay for all 
men whose minds are susceptible of Divine influence ; so that this 
death of Christ appears as a means of healing every breach. (Comp. 
the remarks on x. 16 ; xii. 32, 33.) Moreover he does not allow this 
interpretation of the words to be viewed merely as a subjective ex- 
position ; he states that the High Priest uttered them prophetically. 
Προφητεύειν is here evidently intended to denote “speaking under 
the influence of God,” in opposition to ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ εἰπεῖν (speaking 
from one’s own impulse), and as the latter is denied, so the former 
is asserted of Caiaphas. Now if this expression stood alone, the pas- 
sage would be easily explained ; for the fact that Caiaphas was 
estranged from God no more militates against his having prophesied, 
than does his unconsciousness. Of the former case Balaam is a re- 
markable instance (comp. Numb, xxii.), while it +3 evident that the 
latter—that of a person prophesying without knowing it—is still 
less open to objection than that in which an individual utters a 
prophecy at the very time when he is offering the utmost resistance 
to it, as Balaam did.* But the additional remark, ‘ being High 
Priest for that year” (ἀρχιερεὺς ὧν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου), presents 
a very considerable difficulty. According to this, the Evangelist 
appears to say that the prophecy of Caiaphas stood in necessary 
association with his office as High Priest. True, the attempt has 
been made so to explain the words as not to allow any connexion 
between them and the prophecy, it being thought that they merely 
convey the information that Caiaphas was High Priest in this par- 
ticular remarkable year. In ver, 49, indeed, it is entirely proper so 
to understand them ; but since in verse 51 they are repeated, and 
placed in such close connexion with προφητεύειν, prophesying, in our 
passage, the dependence of prophecy upon the pontifical office, 
according to the view of John, is beyond doubt. The easiest way 
of solving the difficulty is to say, it was a popular notion among the 
Jews that the High Priest possessed the gift of prophecy ; and this 
opinion appears to have been still participated by John. Liicke 
substantially agrees with this view, though he expresses it in more 
modified terms. This assumption is at least more candid and liberal 
than the attempt to refine upon the punctuation (by putting a stop 
after ἐκείνου, in which case the words “in some measure” must be 
interpvlated, to modify προεφήτευσε), or than the explanation of 
προφητεύειν in a modified sense and the like. The only objection 
that may be urged against it is, that the very fact on which the in- 
terpretation rests (viz., that the people in general believed the High 


* Hence the Rabbins even entertain the conviction that it is possible to prophesy 


without knowing it. Comp. Schéttgen hor. ad h. 1. vaticinata est filia Pharaonis et nes- 
ciebat quid vaticinaretur. 


JouN XI. 54-57. 517 | 


Priest to be endowed with the gift of prophecy) is merely a conjec- 
ture derived from this passage. However, I think it must be con- 
fessed that this conjecture is in the highest degree probable. To 
pass by the custom of consulting Urim and Thummim, which surely 
always leads to a knowledge of the future—the idea of the High 
Priest, as representative of the Theocracy, involves the presumption 
that he stood in the closest connexion with God. We have already 
seen that, on account of such connexion, magistrates were called 
Elohim—how much more might this be the case with the High 
Priest ! (Comp. the remarks on x, 84.) Moreover, it is perfectly 
consistent with Mosaic principles to regard the office as entirely in- 
dependent of the character manifested by the individual. The 
High Priest, who was permitted by God to enter the Holy of Holies 
on the great day of atonement, to expiate the sin of the people, 
might by sin have rendered himself in the highest degree culpable, 
but this neither prevented him from approaching God, nor made 
his expiation the less effectual. If, then, we only keep in mind the 
consideration that John did not mean to represent every High 
Priest as necessarily propheysing, but to shew that the High Priest 
was the natural medium through which God might at times reveal 
himself, this view may be very well harmonized with the circle of 
ideas entertained by the Evangelist, as also with Scripture gen- 
erally. 

In a doctrinal light this passage is very interesting, because, in 
the first place, it contains, as a prophecy, the declaration of Christ 
himself that the Gentiles were to be brought into the kingdom of 
God ; for, since the children of God are distinguished from the é6voc, 
nation, the former of these designations must refer only to those 
among the Gentiles who were of superior nature. And in the second 
place, it evidently expresses the sentiment that not the law, but the 
death of the Lord, would be the bond of union between Jews and 
Gentiles—this involving also the truth that the Gentiles would enter 
the kingdom of God immediately without the law (comp. the Comm. 
on Acts x. 1, ff.), and indicating the expiatory virtue of the death 
of Christ, which removes the wall of partition between Jews and 
Gentiles. (Comp. the remarks on Ephes, 11, 14.) (In this passage 
ἔθνος is used to designate the people of Israel, whilst the term ordi- 
narily adopted is λαός, In the Old Testament, the expressions ἘΣ 
and “43 are employed in like manner, these also being interchanged.) 

Ver. 54-57.—The hostility of the Jews now induced the Saviour 
to retire into seclusion till the Passover, it being proposed even by 
the Sanhedrim that whoever knew his place of residence should give 
information of it (ver. 57). The neighbourhood to which Jesus 
went—that of the city of Ephraim—lay north of Jerusalem, by the 
desert of Judah. Ephraim is mentioned by Josephus (B. J. iv. 33), 


518 JOHN XI. 54-57. 


and perhaps in 2 Chron. xiii. 19. In the latter place, however, the 
reading is doubtful. (In our passage, also, the Codices differ ; the 
word being written in some ᾿Εφρέμ, in others "E¢pdy.) Meanwhile, 
the Passover approached, and many hastened from the vicinity of 
Ephraim to Jerusalem, before the commencement of the Feast, for 
the purpose of purifying themselves, according to the Levitical law, 
from their various pollutions. (‘Ayvéerv, ver. 55, is here to be un- 
derstood as denoting merely Levitical purification.) The minds of 
these individuals were so full of the person of Christ, and that which 
related to it, that they entered into earnest debates as to whether it 
was likely that Christ would come to the Feast. (Ver. 56, in the 
question οὐ μὴ ἔλθῃ ; the od μὴ is merely the strengthened negation, 
and consequently—as generally in questions formed with ov—expects 
an affirmative answer, ‘I should think he surely will come to the 
Feast.” Comp. Winer’s Gramm. 472, f.) 


ΠῚ. 


PART THE THIRD. 


LAST RESIDENCE OF CHRIST IN JERUSALEM AT THE PASSOVER 


(John xii. 1—xvii. 26.) 


§ 1. Tae ANOINTING oF Jesus AND His ENTRANCE INTO 
JERUSALEM. 


(John xii, 1-19. [Matt xxvi. 6-13 ; Mark xiv. 3-9.]) 


In this last part of John’s evangelical history, which extends to 
the account of the Sufferings, everything is so closely connected with 
the main design of the Evangelist, that no further remark on this 
point is requisite. For, even the first circumstances from the his- 
tory of the Lord presented for our consideration in this paragraph 
(viz., his anointing and entrance into Jerusalem, which, it is true, 
might have been omitted in case of necessity) are very appropri- 
ately selected, inasmuch as they serve on the one hand to charac- 
terize Judas, whose conduct as betrayer would not have been ac- 
counted for but by this narrative, and on the other to represent the 
inconsistency of the people, who, at the Redeemer’s entrance, shout- 
ed, “‘ Hosanna to the Son of David !” and soon afterwards cried, 
* Crucify him !” Everything, however, that has reference to the 
bringing on of the Lord’s death—the growing hatred of the Phari- 
sees, the increasing villany of Judas, the fickleness of the multitude 
—all this John brings before the reader, and although only in an 
incidental and purely historical manner, yet without losing sight of, 
or impairing, his grand, doctrinal purpose. 

As regards the account of the anointing of Christ by Mary, we 
have already spoken (in the former part of the Commentary) con- 
cerning the difference between this and the kindred history related 
Luke vii. 36, ff. But certain as it is that these two differ, it is 
equally certain that the accounts, Matth. xxvi. 6, ff, Mark xiv. 8, 
ff., are perfectly identical with ours in John. In modern times, 
opinions on this point are quite harmonious. The only writers who 
have maintained the diversity of the narratives are Origen, and more 


520 Jonw XT. a3. 


recently, Lightfoot and Wolf. However, the statements of the 
synoptical Evangelists agree with those of John in everything essen- 
tial, only that according to Matthew and Mark, Mary is the more 
conspicuous, while in John, on the contrary, greater prominence is 
given to Judas Iscariot, whose character the writer intends to point 
out in order to throw light upon his subsequent act. 

John xii. 1, 2, the narrative begins with a date : πρὸ & ἡμερῶν" 
τοῦ πάσχα, K.T. 2., six days before the Passover. Respecting the rela- 
tion of this to the account given by Matthew and Mark, it has 
already been remarked (in the Comm. on Matth. xxi. 1), that these 
Evangelists have not in this instance observed chronological order ; 
for whilst, according to John xii. 12, the entrance did not occur till 
the day after the events here recorded, according to Matthew and 
Mark, it took place long before. It is most probable that the sup- 
per was given on a Sabbath, the Jews being fond of having enter- 
tainments on that day, so that the entrance happened on the 
Sunday. In the six days, that of the supper itself is reckoned as 
the first, but the first day of the Passover is not included. The 
place where the meal was partaken is, in John’s account, left unde- 
termined ; Matthew and Mark observe that it was held in the house 
of a certain Simon who had been afflicted with leprosy, of which it 
is probable that Jesus had healed him. Supposing that this Simon 
was connected with Lazarus by some natural relationship, we have an 
easy explanation of the circumstances that Martha rendered assist- 
ance at the supper, that Mary acted with so much freedom, and that 
Lazarus was present asa guest. (Comp. xii. 2, Λάζαρος εἷς ἣν τῶν 
ἀνακειμένων. Liicke thinks that these words are intended to express 
the reality of the awakening of Lazarus ; to me, however, this ap- 
pears forced.) 

Ver, 3.—During the supper, Mary, with overflowing feelings of 
gratitude towards him who had just restored to her her beloved 
brother, and by the communication of a higher life, first truly given 
her to herself, approached her Lord and anointed him (Comp. the 
remarks on Luke vii. 88, where, in essentials, we have the same thing 
related ; Mark and John alone expressly call the ointment “ spike- 
nard ointment.” [Νάρδος — 555, an odoriferous herb.] Hence they 
describe it as costly [βαρύτιμος, πολύτιμος, πολυτελής], on which account 
it was preserved in a corresponding vessel. [᾿Αλάβαστρον denotes 
the stone as well as the vessel formed from it ; it appears, however, 
that alabaster boxes especially were very commonly used for salves, 
because they kept well in them, for which reason the Scholiast to 
Theocrit’s Idyl, xv. 114, explains it : σκεῦος μύρων δεκτικόν The 
term πιστικός, employed by Mark and John, is obscure. It has been 


* The words πρὸ ἕξ ἡμερῶν stand elegantly for 8£ ἡμέραις πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα. Comp. 
Fritzsche on Matthew, p. 756. Winer'’s Gramm. p. 513. 


Joun XII. 4-8, 521 


proposed to take it as derived from πίνω, and signifying ‘‘ drinkable, 
ἡ. e., liquid.” The derivation from πιστεύω in the sense of “ genuine,” 
“pure,” is better, because nard-oil was often adulterated.) John 
states that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus, and in this respect dif+ 
fers from Matthew and Mark, who mention his head. It may be 
supposed that Mary anointed both, and this at once explains how 
she used so much of the ointment. (John speaks of a Aitpa μύρου, 
pound of ointment; this quantity has been thought too large, but 
the whole act must be regarded as a kind of extravagance of love. 
Mary gave ail that she had without hesitating or economising. The 
words ἡ δὲ οἰκία ἐπληρώθη ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς τοῦ μύρου, and the house was 
filled, etc., would also apply to a great quantity of ointment.) 

Ver. 4-6.—Mary’s ardent, self-forgetting expression of love was 
objected to, as John relates, by Judas ; Matthew and Mark say by 
all the disciples—probably because being excited by the language 
of the betrayer—they allowed themselves to be carried along with 
him. (Matthew and Mark here use the word ἀπώλεια, which is to 
be understood in the sense of “ destruction,” ‘‘ throwing away with- 
out an object.” He would have the costly ointment sold for the 
poor. Matthew has merely πολλοῦ, scil. ἀργυρίου. The two other 
narrators mention a definite sum, viz., 300 denarii, ἡ. e., from twenty- 
five to thirty rix-dollars.) John, however, expressly informs us 
that Judas spoke thus without any true love to the poor, and 
merely from avarice. (Respecting the character of Judas, comp. 
the particulars on Matth. xxvii. 3, ff.) He held the funds belonging 
to the society of Jesus, and from these had appropriated much to 
his own use. (Concerning the gifts presented to Jesus, see the re- 
marks on Luke viii. 3. Tholuck is mistaken in the opinion that 
Jesus had himself placed contributions in the coffer. This certainly 
was not the case, for he had no property. —I'Awoodxonoy literally sig- 
nifies a small case for mouth-pieces (γλῶσσαι) of flutes, and then 
small boxes in general. A more elegant form was γλωττοκομεῖον 
—with the Rabbins x<po‘3, or, by interchange of the aspirates, 
wapoits, Comp. Buxt. lex. p. 443.) 

Ver. 7, 8.—The Lord, in a mild and temperate manner, reproves 
this language of the disciples, and defends the abashed Mary 
against their attack. He directs attention to the excellent feeling 
from which her action sprang, and the impulse of her ardent love, 

‘which, even if she had not expressed it in a perfectly appropriate 
manner, certainly deserved acknowledgment. In order, however, to 
remove all appearance of inappropriateness, the Redeemer, with in- 
expressible delicacy, attributes a still deeper meaning to what she 
did ; ‘‘she anoints me for my burial,” saith the Saviour. It may 
be that he intended by these words also to give her an intimation 
of the unspeakable sorrow that awaited her, For what must she have 


522 Joun XII. 9-19. 


felt when she saw him who had the power to rescue ner beloved Laz- 
arus from the grave, die on the cross! In what a struggle must her 
faith have been involved by such contrasts! According to Matthew 
and Mark, the Saviour crowns his gentleness and tenderness with 
the remark, that in the act of love done to him she had reared to 
herself an eternal monument, as lasting as the Gospel, the eternal 
word of God. From generation to generation, this remarkable 
prophecy of the Lord has been fulfilled, and even we, in explaining 
this saying of the Redeemer, of necessity contribute to its accom- 
plishment. 

Ver. 9-11.—The proximity of the place to Jerusalem drew 
thither many Jews, who were anxious partly to see Jesus, and partly 
to get a sight of Lazarus, the man that had been raised from the 
dead. This movement in their minds aroused the rage of the oppo- 
nents of Christ ; they sought to remove out of the way not only the 
Redeemer, but him whom they regarded as a visible trophy of his 
heavenly power and glory. 

Ver. 12-16.—Jesus, however, instead of fleeing, openly encoun- 
tered them ; on the τς after the Supper, amidst the cheers of the 
multitude, who had for the moment turned to him, he entered the 
Holy City as his own possession. (For the particulars concerning 
the entrance of Christ,“ comp. the Comm. on Matth. xxi. 1.) 
Crowds of people went out te meet him, shouting, and decked 
with branches of palm. (The expression Bata τῶν φοινίκων occurs 
nowhere else. The word βαΐον is said to have been derived from 
the Coptic, and signifies “palm branch.” Φοῖνιξ also signifies 
“palm” [comp. Rev. vii. 9], and is here added by way of explana- 
tion.) The citation (from Zech. ix. 9) is quoted merely from mem- 
ory. Here, again, however (comp. ii. 22), John observes that he 
did not clearly understand the meaning of this passage until a sub- 
sequent period, after the glorification of the Lord. (Respecting 
δοξάζεσθαι, see the remarks on xiii. 31.) 

Ver. 17-19.—The fact that had produced this powerful excite- 
ment of mind was the awakening of Lazarus; this led the simple 
people, who had not been drawn into error by sophisms, justly to 
recognize in Jesus a messenger of God, even the Messianic King of 
Israel himself. But the Pharisees saw from this event, that if they 
meant to maintain themselves in their kingdom of falsehood, they 
must interpose. ᾿Απέρχεσθαι ὀπίσω τινός is a Hebraism, 8' *hx Fn. 
(Comp. Gen, xxxiv. 5, xxxvii. 17.) 


* Ancient expositors conceived that the spiritual meaning of the entrance of Christ 
was a solemn representation of himself as the true Paschal Lamb. In the most recent 
times, Schneckenburger (Beitr. p. 15) has again brought up the same idea. 


JouHn XII. 20-22. 523 


§ 2. Tur Last Pusiic Discourse or JEsus, 
(John xii. 20-50.) 


Ver. 20-22.— Without fixing the date, John further informs us 
of a discourse delivered by Christ in the presence of several Greeks, 
who wished to see him. These “Ἕλληνες cannot have been either 
Jews who spoke Greek (:Ελληνισταῖ), or Pagans, because it is stated 
that the object of their coming was worship (προσκύνησις). No doubt 
they were Greeks by birth, who, as was the case with many Gentiles 
in the time of Christ, from desire after truth, had turned to 
Judaism. Hence they were proselytes, or so-called worshippers of 
God (σεβόμενοι τὸν Θεόν), but whether proselytes of the gate, or of 
righteousness, cannot be precisely determined. The accounts concern- 
ing Christ may have convinced them that in him Divine power was 
to be found, which would satisfy all their anticipations. Probably 
a dense concourse surrounded the Lord, and they were unable to 
get near him ; they expressed their wish to Philip, who may have 
stood nearest to them, and he, after conferring* with Andrew, com- 
municated it to Jesus, Had the wish of these Greeks to see Jesus 
proceeded from mere curiosity, the Redeemer would certainly have 
_ left it unnoticed ; but since it was a true expression of inward de- 
sire, the gracious Lord readily gratified it. Doubtless he not only 
shewed himself to them, but also addressed some words to the 
strangers personally, which the Evangelist has omitted, as not im- 
mediately pertaining to his design, He reports only those words of 
Christ which he spoke in consequence of this occurrence, after the 
personal salutations. Now, although in the beginning of the account 
no date is given, yet we may conclude from ver, 36, that this was 
the last public discourse which Christ delivered, and hence that this 
fact belongs to the last days before the evening with which the 
Passover commenced. 

It is not until the following discourse is thus viewed, that the 
general concluding remarks (ver. 37-43), as also the conversation 
itself, gain their full meaning. We then discover therein an actual 
transfer, as it were, of the Gospel to the Gentiles, and a rejection of 


* Liicke conjectures that Philip deemed this conference necessary on account of the 
introduction of the Greeks into the front court of the Temple. Tholuck was of opinion 
that Philip feared he should trouble Jesus by the proposal to bring the Greeks before him. 
Licke’s view appears to me the more probable; for surely the disciples were not accus- 
tomed to think that anything by which happiness was to be produced would be trouble- 
some to the Lord. Tholuck, in the last edition, utters the conjecture that Philip may 
have thought the wish of the Greeks was founded upon mere curiosity. This is more 
plausible than his former idea, and might well be combined with the supposition of 
Meyer, that Jesus did not permit the Greeks to be brought before him at all. 


524. Joun XII. 23-25, 


Israel, which latter great event the Evangelist brings more distinctly 
into notice by reference to its prophetic announcement ; and thus 
apprehended, this paragraph strictly belongs to the evangelical his- 
tory of John, which appears to have been intended especially for the 
Gentiles, whose condition was one of deeper need. (Respecting the 
apparent argument drawn from ver. 44, ff., against the opinion that 
the Redeemer closed his public ministry with this discourse, see the 
exposition in that place.) 

With this view of our passage harmonizes well the account which 
it contains of the voice that came from heaven (ver. 28, ff.) We do 
not find similar solemn sanctions of the person and work of‘Christ in 
the course of his ministry ; they occur only at its commencement (at 
the baptism, comp. the Comm. on Matth. ii. 17) and here at its 
conclusion. In the former instance the voice was heard on the 
shore of Jordan, on ¢his occasion in Jerusalem, and it would seem 
within the sanctuary, as the transaction probably took place ina 
court of the Temple. Hence the occurrence is like a formal instal- 
lation of Christ as the Lord and King of Israel upon the holy hill 
of God (Ps. 11. 6). 

Ver. 23-25.—If the language of Christ, “ the hour is come,” etc., 
appears unsuited to the preceding circumstances, it is to be observed, 
in the first place, that (as we have already remarked) the report 
given of what the Saviour said certainly is imperfect ; and secondly, 
that the following words of the Lord are themselves connected in a 
very intimate manner with the wish of the Greeks to see him, 
although this connexion is not obvious at the first sight. With all 
the sincerity which characterized the desire of those Greeks, there 
was an inevitable mixture of much that needed correction. Prob- 
ably they expected that Christ would be surrounded by a peculiar, 
sensible glory, whereas his appearance presented nothing striking ; 
and least of all could they have supposed any suffering in his per- 
son. But since the time of his passion was so near at hand that 
these Greeks themselves undoubtedly saw him suffer and die, the 
Redeemer, in his tender love, sought to give them a previous inti- 
mation of the event, that it might not form a stumbling-block in 
their way. True, he did not on this account entirely cast aside the 
glory, for a voice from heaven represented him as already glorified ; 
but humiliation was mingled with the glory, for Jesus himself did 
not refrain from disclosing his inward agitation at his approaching 
sufferings (ver. 27).* We are not to suppose that on this occasion 


* Tholuck thinks it unnatural “that Jesus should designedly have given the Greeks, 
by way of preparation, a prelude to his approaching sufferings;” but does not himself offer 
any explanation of the fact before us. Now, if this did not take place in the presence of 
the Greeks accidentally—considering that even in Gethsemane the Redeemer did not 
expose himself to the view of all his disciples in the time of his fear—scarcely anything 


JoHN XII. 25, 26. 525 


Christ was involuntarily overpowered by the anticipation of his 
sufferings, but rather that his conduct was deliberate, and adapted 
to the circumstances, although it was far from anything affected, 
since it displays the charm of the most unconstrained activity of 
soul. (Concerning ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα, comp. the remarks on vii. 44, 
viii. 20.—As regards δοξάζεσθαι, consult the observations on xiii. 
31.) The way, however, to this glorification, would appear to 
destroy the very glory pertaining to it. Hence, on account of 
this strong contrast, the discourse is commenced with ἀμὴν ἀμὴν ---- 
The κόκκος τοῦ σίτου, grain of wheat, here selected by Jesus as an 
illustration, forms a pleasing, and at the same time deeply signifi- 
cant, image of that life which springs forth afresh out of death,* 
The grain of seed must rot in the earth, if it is to answer its end 
and bring forth fruit ; otherwise it remains alone. Such an illus- 
tration mitigates the bitterness of death, and makes it appear de- 
sirable as a necessary passage to a glorious goal. Only, the figure 
must not be stretched too far ; for we may easily overstep the limit 
which separates the image and that which is compared with it. 
For example, if we were.to extend the simile so far as to institute 
a comparison between a grain of corn planted in the earth, and the 
sacred body of Christ, there would be a perversion of the figure, be- 
cause the body of Christ did not decay. The only point of compar- 
ison to be kept in view is death, in which the holy soul of Christ was 
planted, but the sacrifice of his life was like the generation of a higher 
kind of life, for from this a whole world received its nobler being. 

Ver. 25, 26.—The Saviour, that he may not be regarded by 
the strangers who are listening to him, merely in an objective 
light, with admirable wisdom passes on to the subjective view, and 
shews them how that which in its highest degree was his sacrifice, 
in proportion awaits all, and even themselves. The way to eternal 
else remains than the interpretation which I have propounded. That interpretation says 
nothing about a prelude to his sufferings: it merely supposes an open disclosure of tho 
impression which the prospect of Christ’s sufferings produced upon his mind. Mean- 
while, it is a question whether Meyer has not taken the right view in thinking that Jesus 
did not permit the Greeks to be brought into his presence at all; at any rate this suppo- 
sition would entirely set aside the difficulty of which we have spoken. 

* The same metaphor is employed by the oriental mystics, who are so eminently dis- 
tinguished for their profound reflections upon nature. Thus speaks Ielaleddin in Tholuck’s 
Bliithensamml. p. 109); 

Deep in the bosom of the earth cast grains of corn, 
And soon upstarts the golden ear both large and full; 
Then let the flail with bruises part the ear in twain, 
And from the broken ear comes food to nourish us. 


Nature, conceived of as animated by the breath of the Eternal, and sustained by tho 
Almighty word of God, contains in her phenomena the most pregnant symbols of all the 
truths pertaining to the spiritual world. Hence all profounder vision in the most diverse 
periods and nations, frequently agrees in choosing the same metaphors to illustrate the 
same ideas, 


526 JoHN XII. 27. 


. life is to hate one’s life (μισεῖν τὴν ψυχήν). (On this subject comp. 
the Comm. Matth. x. 89.) He, however, who follows the Re- 
deemer in this path, which leads through death to life (Rom. vi. 5) 
shall be where he ἐξ," and (as a privilege associated with this), 
shall share his glory (John xvii. 22), which the Father confers 
upon him. 

Ver. 27.—The Redeemer follows this with an expression of deep 
and sorrowful agony: ‘‘ Now is my soul troubled” (νῦν ἡ ψυχή pov 
τετάρακται). We must not overlook the circumstance that here the 
term ψυχή, soul, is selected ; this expression denotes an individual, 
personal sorrow, whilst πνεῦμα, spirit, rather indicates that which is 
general, That personal sorrow is indeed to be considered more limit- 
ed, but hence also more intense than the other. (See the remarks on . 
John xi. 33; Matth. xxvi. 88.) With the cry of lamentation itself, 
is blended a prayer to God, which at the same time, in the repetition 
of the name “ Father,” shews the permanent liveliness of his filial 
feeling. (It was just so during the conflict in Gethsemane, Matth. 
xxvi. 89,42 ; and also on the cross, Matth. xxvu. 46.) Under the 
expression ὥρα αὕτη, this hour, Christ comprehends the whole time 
of suffering, which he recognizes as necessary to the perfection of 
his work, and for which he entreats the special support of the Fath- 
er. The words διὰ τοῦτο, for this, imply the idea ‘‘in order to re- 
deem mankind, to complete my work.’ It is an aposiopesis, which 
is easily explained by the excited state of his mind. The victory 
gained is expressed in the language: ‘ Father, glorify thy name” 
πάτερ, δόξασόν σου τὸ ὄνομα. scil. ἐν ἐμοί. (Ὄνομα = Εὖ stands for the 
Divine entity itself, but in its manifestation, which δοξάζειν necessa- 
rily indicates ;+ for it is only as manifesting himself that God can 
disclose his δόξα, the highest point of which appears in the comple- 
tion of the work of the Son.) 

The similarity of this occurrence to the conflict in Gethsemane 
is obvious ; only that, here the struggle was shorter and in public, 
whilst in Gethsemane, on the contrary, the agony of Christ was pro- 
longed, and took place in the presence of no more than his three 
most intimate companions. (Comp. the exposition of Matth. xxvi. 
36, ff.) What may have induced the Redeemer, under the circum- 
stances in this instance, to shew himself to those strangers in his 
humiliation, has already been suggested. Hence it only remains to 
be observed that, according to our passage, the Christ of John, in 
relation to the conflict through which he passed, does not appear 

* It is true the words ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ, ἐκεῖ ὁ διάκονος ὁ ἐμὸς ἔσται are employed only in 
a general sense, without any special explanation; but if we compare such passages as 
1 John iii. 2, John xiv. 2, 3, it is impossible to doubt that here the immediate presence 
of believers with Christ after death is expressed ; which implies that, in their case, Hades 


is overcome, and the abode in it is escaped. (See the Comm. on Luke xvi. 19, ff.) 
¢ Concerning δοξάζειν, comp. the observations on John xiii. 31. 


JoHN XII. 28-30. 527 


different from the Christ of the synoptical Evangelists. What the 
conflict of Jesus in Gethsemane is to the latter, this passage is to 
John. (Respecting the attempt to shew the identity of the two 
events, comp. the particulars in the Comm. on Matth. xxvi. 36.) 
Ver. 28-30.—This prayer of the Redeemer was followed, as it 
were, by an answer, a voice from heaven, in which the glorification 
of God in the Son is first represented as a process already going on, 
and then (in reference to its completion) is promised as yet to come. 
(For the details on this subject comp. the remarks on xiii. 31.) 
This passage is remarkable, inasmuch as it mentions not merely the 
voice from heaven, but the way in which the bystanders judged of 
it. Some said it thundered ; others, that an angel had spoken. 
Besides this, however, we have the express declaration of the Lord, 
that it was not an incidental natural occurrence, but a designed 
voice, the intention of which was to sanction the Redeemer before 
men, ‘The opinion that we have propounded respecting voices from 
heaven, on the occasion of a similar event, Matth, iii. 17, is thus 
perfectly established. For the very reason that they revealed the 
spiritual world, it was only with the spiritual ear that they could be 
perceived in their true character. Where there was an entire ab- 
sence of susceptibility to spiritual things, a hollow external impres- 
sion might be made upon the hearers, but no meaning was appre- 
hended ; accordingly they compared it with a similar sound, a kind 
of low thunder. The more susceptible among them who were pro- 
bably watching the countenance of Jesus—whose looks no doubt 
reflected the state of his mind—remarked that some one spoke with 
him, and attributed what they heard and saw in him, to an angel, 
Those alone who were truly enlightened received the true and pure 
impression of the voice. Thus the fact assumes a very distinct and 
simple form. True, hostility to any extraordinary disclosure of the 
spiritual world and its almighty Lord has induced the attempt to 
elude it also in this instance. Even Liicke, in the exposition of this 
passage, has decidedly espoused the hypothesis of the Bath Kol 
(daughter of the voice.) But, altogether apart from the great 
improbability that a custom so liable to abuse should have been 
sanctioned by God, the unsoundness of this theory is plainly shewn 
by a remark which Tholuck has already made on the passage— 
viz., it is perfectly indemonstrable that the Bath Kol consisted 
in anything else than human words. Moreover, if it be borne 
in mind that we have accounts (and we can hardly suppose that 
they are all fabulous) of heavenly voices being heard in other in- 
stances not unfrequently occurring (comp. Joseph. Ant. xiii. 3, de 
Bell. Jud. vii. 12, Epist. Smyrn. de Polyc. c. 9)—-and if it be fur- 
ther considered that, in every case of theophany, a voice is audible, 
and thus here we need only suppose the presence of an invisible 


528 Joun XII. 31-33. 


form, then—if the possibility of a manifestation of the spiritual 
economy be not denied in general—no substantial objection can be 
urged against our view.* 

Ver. 31-33.—With the declaration respecting the design of this 
transaction, Jesus in his discourse connects a more precise statement 
of the weighty character of the moment in which he spoke. He 
calls it the time of judgment concerning this world, and associates 
with it the victory of truth. Thus these words express the same 
sentiment, only viewed in two different lights. The overthrow of 
evil necessarily involves the victory of good, for it is only the latter 
that can render the former possible. The exclusion of Satan (and 
his angels with him) from heaven (Luke x. 18; Rev. xii. 7, ff.) ne- 
cessarily presupposes the exaltation of Christ, and of his own with 
him, from earth to heaven. The fundamental idea of the passage 
in reference to the judgment is clear, according to such passages as 
Luke x. 18; John ii. 17, ff Judgment, as the separation of the 
evil from the great living community of the universe, is not to 
be regarded merely as concentrated in the end of time, but pro- 
ceeds through the course of the world’s history, and manifests itself 
in special conjunctures which display the operation of the Good in 
full energy. When the disciples, with the powers of the higher 
world, expelled those evil spirits who had bound the sons of Abra- 
ham (Luke x. 18), the Lord recognized in that a fall of Satan from 
his throne ; and when upon this occasion Gentiles pressed into the 
kingdom of God, he recognized Satan’s complete destruction. 
(John xvi. 11.) The partition-wall of the law, which sin necessa- 
rily erected between nations, was destroyed by the power of truth ; 
and the result was, in place of separation, the unity of all (Ephes. 
ii, 14). 

In ver. 31, the mention of the Devil without any occasion being 
offered, and in the presence of Greek strangers, is important. Even 
the most ingenious theory of accommodation, has in this instance a 
very difficult task to perform ; for it would seem that if that idea 
had contained no real truth, it would have been necessary, especially 
here, to avoid it in the most decided manner, since it might be dif- 
fused among circles where as yet it was not known. (The name 
ἄρχων Tod κόσμου τούτου occurs nowhere but in John [xiv. 39, xvi. 11]. 


* Kling (loc, cit. p. 675) is decidedly opposed to Liicke,and adopts the hypothesis of 
something supernatural which was to be heard on this occasion, and which men quite er- 
roneously took for thunder. Liicke, in support of this view—that thunder also, and not 
merely words, was considered as Bath Kol—appeals to Tract. Sanhedr. fol. 11, where it 
is said, vox super ipsis edita est de celo. But in these words the vox may have becn 
the Divine voice itself, of which the echo on earth was only deemed too certain an indica- 
tion. Thunder would not havo been called vox de ccelo; it is not called so in the 
nc pin ane even in Psalm xxix., which contains the most minute description of 
thunder, 


JoHn XII. 31-83. 529 


It corresponds with the Hebrew tbizq anor nbtvn we. Faul uses, 
instead of this, Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, 2 Cor. iv. 4. The expres- 
sion ὁ κόσμος οὗτος is rare [compare also John viii. 23]. The 
pronoun is strictly pleonastic, for κόσμος μέλλων never occurs.* 
Κόσμος is here quite synonymous with αἰών, as 2 Cor. iv. 4—The 
reading κάτω for ἔξω indicates that we are to understand ἐκβάλλεσθαι 
as meaning a removal from heaven.f The latter reading, however, 
is the only correct one; it supposes the metaphor of a temple or 
the dwelling of God, from which the prince of this world is cast 
out.) That ὑψωθῆναι, lifted up, ver. 32, primarily conveys the idea 
of glorification, there can be no doubt. (On this subject compare 
the Comm. iii. 14, viii, 28.) The different interpretation given of 
it by John will be discussed in the immediate sequel. But before 
we pass on to that, there remains for our consideration the clause 
“1 will draw all men to myself” (πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν). Now 
it is evident that drazw (as we have already remarked on vi. 44) does 
not involve the notion of anything violent and compulsory, but 
rather indicates the power of Christ which awakens the will itself, 
and by which he gathers men from their state of separation, at- 
tracting them, likea magnet, to himself. The word πάντας, all, 
must not be overlooked. This expression might appear very 
favourable to the restoration of all (ἀποκατάστασις τῶν πάντων), since 
πάντες, although with the article it may denote a certain precisely 
defined whole, 6. g. the called, yet, in the absence of the article, 
signifies the whole, without restriction. But probably the idea, 
that the doctrine of the restoration is here intimated might be 
sufficiently met by observing that “all” designates the Gentiles 
in distinction from the Jews, who thought they were the only 
objects of the Messiah’s coming; while the circumstance that 
there will be unbelieving Gentiles also is no part of the subject 
under consideration. The words relate to the Divine purpose, 
which, indeed, through the resistance of many, is not fulfilled in all, 
Christ draws, not some men, but all ; those only who resist this at- 
traction are excluded from salvation. In fact this passage teaches 
the universality of the operations of grace. (Comp. the remarks on 
Rom. xi. 32.) John’s interpretation of the language of Christ now 
leads us to the following verse. 


* In Heb. ii. 5, we find the parallel expression οἰκουμένη μέλλουσα, but this does not 
occur anywhere else in the New Testament, 

+ Litcke, in speaking on this subject, asks, ‘Of what consequence is it to us, that 
a transcriber understood the passage thus?” With every one who denies the Johannine 
origin of the Apocalypse, this observation may have some force ; but to us, who admit 
that, the matter is of unquestionable importance. Rev. xii. 7, ff., the dragon is for the 
first time cast out of heaven, That passage does not involve anything essentially differ- 
ent from what is referred to here; the only variation is, that there the result produced by 
the work of Jesus is represented as absolutely complete. (Comp. Jobi. 6, ii. 1.) 


Von. 11.---84 


530 Joun XII. 34, 


Ver. 34.—The people understand ὑψωθῆναι, lifted wp, according 
to the known signification of the word (comp. the Comm. on iii. 14, 
viii. 28), as denoting crucifixion. This is evidently implied by the 
antithesis to “abiding forever” (μένειν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), and by the fol- 
lowing answer of Christ (ver. 35): “‘ Yet a little while,” etc. It is 
not very remarkable that the people should have attached this 
meaning to the expression ; but that John appears to agree with 
this interpretation is extraordinary, considering that in the words of 
Christ the term is so evidently employed to designate the glorifica- 
tion, It would certainly be the shortest way to say that John was 
mistaken in this explanation, But since, xviii. 32, he again refers to 
what Christ had said, as a prophecy of Christ concerning his death, 
he appears to have laid a stress on this (otherwise he would as- 
suredly by no means have made such a remark); and it is hardly 
to be conceived of the inspired John, that in doing so he was alto- 
gether mistaken. In my opinion the simplest method of solving 
the difficulty is to suppose that John regarded the crucifixion of 
Jesus as a symbol.* His elevation from earth on the cross is, to 
the Evangelist, an emblem of his being set up as the ensign (03 
Isaiah xi. 10) around which the nations should rally ; and he would 
describe the attractive power of the cross of Christ as so great, that 
those who are susceptible follow it, although in the case of every 
one of them, the way to Christ should again lead through death on the 
cross, Thus there is in these words a retrospective allusion to what 
precedes (ver. 25, ff.), where Christ claimed the surrender of life. It 
is necessary, as we have frequently remarked, to guard against re- 
jecting such a twofold sense in ambiguous phraseology, because 
the use of it is prevalent, especially in the oriental philosophy, and 
the language of Christ decidedly partakes of its peculiar charac- 
ter. The idea of the Messiah’s eternal continuance very naturally 
arose from such passages of the Old Testament (νόμος = γραφή) 
as ascribe to the Messiah an eternal kingdom (Psalm cx. 4; 
Dan, vii. 14). Only it was overlooked that, in the Old Testa- 
ment, the first and second advents of the Lord are not clearly dis- 
tinguished, and hence it was thought that the Messiah, at his first 
coming, would continue for ever. 

Fina.ly, this passage again seems to furnish proof that the names 
Son of Man and Christ (Χριστός) are synonymous. But if it be 
granted—as it undoubtedly must be—that the discourse of Christ 
was not fully reported, and that he previously called himself 
Son of Man, this apparent proof vanishes. The passage then 
rather opposes the view that Son of Man was a common desig- 
nation of the Messiah. The multitude felt, when Christ applied 


* On this subject comp. the details in the History of the Sufferings at the crucifixion, 
Luke xxiii. 39, ff. 


JoHn XII. 35-40, 531 


the name to himself, that the signification must be kindred to the 
name of Messiah, but they could not rightly understand it, eapee= 
ially with the accompanying mention of his being “lifted up,” and 
consequently they even conjectured that by the Son of Man he 
meant some one else than himself. 

Ver. 35, 36.—As the question could not be answered without 
entering into a full discussion, and this, under the existing circum- 
stances, was impossible, Jesus conducts the minds of his hearers to 
that which was of practical moment. It was important for them 
to make use of him while he continued amongst them ; when he 
withdrew the light would depart, and the dark night of temptation, 
fraught with peril, would break in upon them. The sentiment ex- 
pressed in ver. 35 being explained by ver. 36, the passage contains 
no difficulty, especially as the particular cause of obscurity in simi- 
lar passages (vil. 34, ix. 4, xi. 9) does not occur here. (Instead of 
the more difficult ἐν ὑμῖν, the text. rec. has μεθ’ ὑμῶν, which certainly 
is not the original ane Here a must be explained according 
to the ye angz = “among you.” ‘True, that in the es 
of John, ἐν τινὶ εἶναι has a pregnant sense, and this thight he 
Pidicctod here by the expression viot φωτός, But the connexion 
shews that the hearers are persons who do not even admit the light 
into themselves, but reject it ; hence ἐν ὑμῖν can only be understood 
as referring to the mass. “The light still acts for a little while in 
you, ὦ. 6. in the nation, or among you.”) 

Ver. 37-40.—As the public ministry of Christ here closed, John 
appends some concluding remarks on the unbelief of the people. 
First, he speaks of those who were quite unsusceptible, and then 
(ver. 42, 43) of those who were impressed, but were restrained by 
fear of men from free confession. The design of these observations 
evidently is, to shew that this unbelief did not at all ‘set aside the 
purposes of God, but, on the contrary, fulfilled them. Hence the 
form ἵνα πληρωθῆ, that it might be fulfilled, is to be taken in its most 
literal sense. (Comp. the Comm. on Matth. i. 22.) The first pas- 
sage merely states the actual result of the preaching of the suffering 
Redeemer. (It is quoted from Isaiah 1111, 1, and ‘exactly corres- 
ponds with the LXX.) But even the words οὐκ ἠδύναντο πιστεύειν͵ 
they could not believe, convey the sterner sentiment which the second 
passage (Isaiah vi, 10) expresses with the utmost possible severity. 
(This citation seems to have been made merely from memory ; for 
it differs very much from the original, as well as from the LX X., while 
it does not appear that the variation was designed.) We have al- 
ready shewn at large (in the Comm, on Matthew xiii, 10, ff.) that 
this rigid statement must not be modified by exegetical arts, as 
it may rather, by surmounting the internal difficulty, be har- 
monized with the general doctrine of Scripture. It is the very 


532 Joun XII. 41-50. 


curse appointed by God to rest upon the wicked, that wickedness 
increases until at length all susceptibility to that which is good is 
at an end, so that the most glorious manifestation of good, accord-— 
ing to the invariable law of justice, instead of conferring blessings, 
brings only condemnation upon those who are confirmed in evil. 

Ver. 41—This quotation of the Evangelist is very important 
to us, on account of the express statement that Isaiah saw His 
(Christ’s) glory, and spake of Him. (The connexion shews that 
αὐτοῦ cannot be applied to any one but Christ, and that it does not 
refer to God as, in a forced manner, has been supposed.) Hence 
John recognized the majestic vision seen by Isaiah (Is. vi. 1 ff.) as a 
manifestation of the Logos, the Son of God. This necessarily fol- 
lows from the essential relation of the Son to the Father. For the 
Son is the revelation of the Father, as the word is the disclosure of 
the hidden mind in man. A man cannot communicate himself ex- 
cept by language, so the concealed, invisible Father (i. 18) reveals 
himself only in the Original Word the Son. The Son is the King 
Jehovah who rules in the Old Testament, and appears to the elect,as 
in the New Testament the Spirit, the invisible minister (ὑπηρέτης) 
of the Son, is the Director of the Church, and the Revealer in the 
sanctuary of the heart. This profound mystery of the Godhead 
was first unveiled to us by the Son when he was glorified in death. 
(Comp. the remarks on vii. 39.) Such passages as 1 Cor.x., Heb. xi. 
26, 1 Pet. i. 11 shew that the same view respecting the Son as the re- 
vealer of the Father was entertained by the other writers of the New 
Testament. 

Ver. 42, 43.—The above remarks concerning the general unbelief 
are now limited by the statement that many, even among the rulers 
of the people, believed, although through fear of man they did not 
openly confess their faith. Nicodemus and other adherents of 
Jesus, who were characterized by a similar disposition, are here cen- 
sured (v. 44). 

Ver. 44-50.— The circumstance that the Evangelist here again 
introduces the Lord as speaking, appears opposed to the view given 
in our exposition of ver, 20—that the above discourses were the last 
delivered by Christ in public. Many commentators connect these 
words with ver. 36, and suppose that the Lord turned round once 
more before his departure and uttered the language that follows, 
True, this opinion might derive support from ἔκραξε, he cried, since 
the term seems to indicate an actual utterance.* But the greatest 
weight is on the side of the considerations which have induced 


* This is appealed to especially by Kling (loc. cit. p. 677, ff.) who has at last es- 
poused the opinion that the Redeemer actually spoke these words. De Wette, indeed, 
refers the section to the Evangelist, but in such a manner that he thinks the Evangelist 
actually ascribed to Christ a regular discourse which he never delivered ; a view, of course, 
untenable, as destroying the character of inspiration. 


Joun XII. 44-50. 533 


Liicke and Tholuck, after the example of J. D. Michaelis and Morus, 
to regard the entire contents of the subsequent verses, not as an actual 
discourse of Christ, but as an epitome of his discourses by the Evan- 
gelist ; in which case the words ἔκραξε καὶ εἶπεν, he cried and said, 
are to be taken as meaning, “ Jesus was accustomed to declare with 
great emphasis.” ‘The arguments for this hypothesis are as follows: 
First, the following statements contain no thought not previously 
expressed ; secondly, they consist of individual sentences linked to- 
gether by no strict internal relationship ; thirdly, the sayings select- 
ed are the very ones that stand in close connexion with the forego- 
ing accusation of unbelief against the Jews, for in these Christ states 
the purpose of his sublime mission, and points out the blessing of 
faith, as well as the curse of unbelief. (Respecting ver. 44, comp. 
the passage vii. 16 ; ver. 45, xiv. 9; ver. 46, viii. 12; ver, 47, 11]. 
17, 18, v.45 ; ver. 48, 111: 8, viii. 24; ver, 49, iii, 11, v. 20; ver. 50, 
v. 30, vii. 16.) In the concluding verse, the only peculiarity is the 
clause “ 115 command is eternal life” (ὅτε ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιός 
ἐστι). This needsa special consideration. ‘H ἐντολή, the command, 
certainly refers to the preceding ἐντολή, command (without an ar- 
ticle) ; but still the subject of discourse in this place, cannot be 
merely this one command of God concerning what the Redeemer 
should say, for the eternal life belongs to Christ in and for himself, 
and not because he obeyed this command. Accordingly the words 
are to be understood in a general sense, and the meaning is this : 
“‘ every command of God is eternal life ; happy therefore is he who 
receives my word, for all my words are spoken under God’s authority, 
and thus by God’s own command.” One thing here is of the great- 
est importance, viz., the ἐστί, is. This (as xvii. 3) is not to be modi- 
fied by taking it as synonymous with the language : ‘ it produces 
or procures eternal life, 7, e., when obeyed.” Such an interpretation 
is opposed to the depth and spirituality of John’s views. To him 
the command of God is a living utterance of God himself, an essen- 
tial power ; and hence, like the true knowledge, as such it is eternal 
life. He who receives the word of God, and allows it to operate 
within him, has in it eternal life. Accordingly, although the term 
“command” (ἐντολή) seems to lead to the legal point of view, still 
here it is clearly seen that the expression is associated with the life 
of faith, which includes the knowledge of the Divine daz (and its 
individual expressions, the commandments), the Divine element re« 
ceived by the believer being the very element whence the Law pro- 
ceeds. 


534 Joun XIII. 1. 


§ 3. Tae Wasuine or THE FEET 
(John xiii. 1-30.) 


The Redeemer having thus closed his public ministry, now turned 
his attention entirely to that little flock of his own disciples who not 
merely believed (like those fearful persons, xii. 42), but also courage- 
ously confessed their faith. The event to which John gives special 
prominence, in the period of this more intimate fellowship, is the 
last meal of Jesus with his friends. The identity of this δεῖπνον, 
feast, with the last Supper is supported, first, by the parallel Luke 
xxii. 27, which evidently relates to the washing of the feet, and 
places it at the time of the Supper; secondly, John himself (xiii. 
21, ff., 38, ff.) mentions the same conversation, as, according to the 
other Evangelists, took place at the Passover ; and, finally, this 
entirely continuous interview, is immediately succeeded by the de- 
parture of Christ to Gethsemane (xvii. 26, xviii. 1). For the objec- 
tions that have been urged against this view, and for the hypotheses 
propounded in order to reconcile the synoptical Evangelists with 

‘John, in reference to the chronology, comp. the remarks on Matth. 
xxvi. 17, in the Comm. on the History of the Passion. Here there 
is only one point (not mentioned there) that needs solution ; viz., 
why was the institution of the sacrament of the Holy Supper not 
related by John ? In the first place, it would be quite sufficient, 
in explanation of this omission, to remark that John may have 
deemed the institution of this sacrament unimportant to his main 
design, on which account also he is silent concerning the institution 
of the sacrament of baptism ; especially since he wrote for persons, 
all of whom were already acquainted with the essentials of the Gos- 
pel, so far as its external form was concerned. And, besides this, 
the institution of the Supper was narrated with such precision by 
the other Evangelists, that it did not need any repetition whatever. 
Such information respecting the incidents connected with the last 
meal of Jesus as they had omitied—e, g., the washing of the feet— 
John here supplied. Meanwhile, this latter fact is by no means re- 
lated merely for the sake of supplementing the synoptical gospels ; 
on the contrary, it also stands in immediate connexion with the ob- 
jects of our author. On the one hand, it was intended to form an 
historical basis for the extended discourses of Jesus which follow : 
while on the other, John doubtless inserted the account of the wash- 
ing of the feet in order that the Redeemer, whom he had s0 fre- 
quently represented as exalting himself (when he called himself the 
Light of the World, the Water, the Bread of Life, and so forth), 
might be exhibited in the self-abasement of genuine humility which 


JoHN XIII. 1. 535 


constituted his finest ornament, though the Gnostics were but too 
much disposed to mistake it. And further, the notices of Judas 
that occur in the narrative were important to John, for the pur- 
pose of shewing the relation of Jesus to his betrayer. 

As regards the washing of the feet itself, in the first place, the 
occasion that induced it is clearly seen in the passage, Luke xxii. 
24, ff, where mention is made of strife among the disciples. This 
led to an act which set forth in the most striking manner, the deep- 
est self-humiliation of Christ, and also recommended the same to 
the disciples. Secondly, this proceeding, according to the design of 
the Lord, was to have a symbolical significance. (Comp. the details 
on xii. 10.) For while baptism relates to that purification and 
renovation of the whole man which happens only once, the washing 
of the feet was intended to illustrate the daily cleansing from that 
contamination of the world, which even the regenerate man cannot 
avoid, but which would become injurious to him only in case he did 
not immediately endeavour to remove it. Thus we are not so much 
to suppose a double sense in the words, as to recognise a symboli- 
cal character in the transaction; a case which, as we have already 
several times remarked, frequently occurs in the evangelic history, 
(Comp. the Comm. on Matth. xxi. 18, ff.) Such a metaphorical admo- 
nition was more than ever necessary for the disciples at this particuliar 
time. They were about to encounter circumstances in which their 
faith might easily be shaken ; hence it was important for them to 
know that one sinful emotion, a single instance of being overtaken by 
surprise, would not suffice to wrest them from their state of grace, 
but that they might daily receive fresh pardon for such defile- 
ments. 

Another remarkable point in this account is, that the transac- 
tion appears to have all the criteria of a sacramental one. It wears 
the aspect of an external rite instituted by Christ, to which a pro- 
mise of grace is appended. The washing of the feet, in its relation 
to the following Supper, seems emblematical of repentance, in so far 
as daily repentance is necesary even to the believer, and is calcula- 
ted to produce new assurance of forgiveness before the participation 
of the Holy Supper. Nota trace, however, of a sacramental washing 
of feet is to be found in the oldest tradition of the church, and the 
thought of adopting this rite was never entertained by the scholas- 
tics of the middle ages—with all their disposition to increase the 
number of sacraments—or even by the Reformers, notwithstanding 
the fact that they at first regarded panitentia as the third sacrament, 
(Comp. conf. August. ο, 7.) Still many might think that the words 
of Christ, although not affording ground for the admission of it as a 
sacrament, might serve to recommend its retention as a rite in the 
church. In fact, we meet with the practice of feet-washing here 


536 JOHN XIII. 1. 


and there in the ancient* church, although it never was general, 
and it took place only as a supplement to the ceremony of baptism. 
But it was very soon found that the relations of the sexes, as also 
the differences of climate, rendered it impossible to continue the 
usage in large communities. (Amongst the modern sects, that of 
the Brethren has attempted to introduce it again.t) This circum- 
stance, therefore, is a remarkable example of the truth that the 
words of the Lord, which are spirit and life, are to be apprehended 
with spirit and life. Had the ancient church, from rigid adherence 
to the letter, required the external washing of the feet on the part 
of all its members mutually, asa religious duty, this certainly would 
have been a mistake. (For further remarks respecting the feet-wash- 
ing, comp. the Comm, on Matth. xxvi. 26.) 

Chap. xiii. 1.—As regards the construction of the first verse, 
Liicke, in his first edition, follows the view of Knapp, which places 
ver, 2 in parenthesis, and resumes εἰδώς, ver, 3, from ver, 1. But 
aside from the fact that this construction increases the chronological 
difficulty involved in the words πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα, and before 
the feast, etc., an antecedent objection to it arises from the fact that 
the εἰδώς ver, 3 is quite distinct from that in ver, 1. The latter re- 
lates to the consciousness that the hour of his suffering was near, the 
former to the consciousness of full Divine authority ; and hence the 
one cannot be taken as a resumption of the other. If, on the con- 
trary, the first sentence is completely finished with the words ἠγάπη- 
σεν αὐτούς, and the second period opened with καὶ δείπνου yevo- 
μένου, all obscurity in connexion with πρὸ ἑορτῆς vanishes ; for 
this expression then refers not merely to the δεῖπνον, but to the 
whole time immediately before the Redeemer’s passion, during which 


* In the apostolic church the traces are altogether wanting, for 1 Tim. v. 10, πόδας 
νίψασθαι is mentioned merely as an act of kindness done to others, not asa frequently re- 
peated symbolical ceremony performed without real necessity. The Anabaptists and 
Mennonites have discovered, in this passage, a reference to washing the feet in a literal 
sense. Thus in the Confessio of the Mennonites in Prussia, in the year 1678, it is said: 
quodsi quidam ab ecclesia ad exequenda queedam spiritualia mittuntur, primo in domos 
nostras introeuntes, osculo sancto salutantur, et in signum humilitatis et caritatis erga 
illos pedes lavantur. (Comp. Schroékh’s R. G. nach der Reform. Vol. v. p. 457.) 

+ On this subject, comp. the passages in Bingham orig. eccl. vol. iv. 894, sqq. 

¢ In those churches, however, it is not a universal regulation, but is left to the male 
and female leaders of the services to introduce it or not, as they think suitable. This 
wise arrangement displays a very just sense of the doubtfulness that attaches to the 
general practice of it in our circumstances ; it is evident that the only intention is to spare 
the consciences of those who regard the performance of the rite asa duty. The cere- 
mony in the Romish Church, customary with the Pope and with Princes, is known. On 
this subject Bengel finely remarks: Magis admirandus foret pontifex unius regis, quam 
duodecim pauperum, pedes seria humilitate lavans.—In many places, particularly in rural 
districts, the custom of washing the feet on the evening before communion day still pre- 
vails in the evangelical churches. This evidently shews that the washing of the feet is 
regarded as an act expressive of purification in repentance. 


JoHN XIII. 2. 587 


season the love of the Lord to his disciples was specially ardent, and 
centinued in this ardour and energy to the end of his earthly pil- 
erimage.* (Respecting his distiples, it is emphatically observed, 
that they remained in the world, and in the midst of their tempta- 
tions, for the purpose of giving force to the antithesis that Christ 
himself was about to leave the sinful world that he might pass into 
the kingdom of peace [πρὸς τὸν πατέρα]. “Iva is not to be taken éx- 
βατικῶς, but should be translated ; he “knew the hour was come, 
the intention of which was to remove him to the Father.” 

Ver, 2.—The Evangelist now connects with the subject more 
immediately in hand the cursory remark, that Judas Iscariot had 
already conceived the design, and had devoted himself to betray 
Jesus. As regards the position of this statement in this particular 
place, it is by no means accidental. For since Judas was present 
at the washing of the feet, and the Redeemer washed his feet also, 
this observation is intended to shew the amazing greatness of the 
Redeemer’s self-abasement, while at the same time it exhibits the 
shamelessness of the wretched disciple (especially in contrast with 
Peter), who could bear the thought that the Holy One of God, 
whom he was about to betray, should perform the meanest service 
for him. - Hence, in the person of Judas, the thorough presump- 
tion of sin stands out in glaring opposition to the humility of the 
Saviour. 

Respecting the statement itself, ver. 27, and Luke xxii. 3, may 
be compared.t According to the former passage, it would seem that 
putting into the heart (βάλλειν εἰς καρδίαν) is something less than 
entering into one (εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τινά), and indeed it is certain that 
there is a difference between the’two phrases ; meanwhile Luke xxii. 
3 shews that the distinction must not be urged too strictly, the dif- 
ference being not so much in kind as in degree. A more important 
distinction—not indeed actually expressed, but involved in biblical 
psychology—is to be observed between putting into the mind (Gda- 
dev εἰς νοῦν) and into the heart (εἰς καρδίαν). The former relates 
only to the faculty of knowledge and to consciousness ; and an ex- 
citation of the most wicked thoughts, by hostile powers, is possible 
even in the most pious. But in such an individual, the heart, as the 
centre of the personality and will, puts forth a decided resistance to 
“such thoughts, so that they cannot become dnclination. The latter 
(βάλλειν εἰς τὴν καρδίαν), on the contrary, implies, not merely the action 

* Respecting the construction of the passage, comp. the remarks of Kling (loc. cit. ἢ. 
679, f.) He justly censures Liicke for making the distinction between ἀγαπήσας and 
ἠγάπησεν, that tke former denotes the disposition of love, but the latter the evidence of 
love, and taking tho words εἰς τέλος as signifying “finally.” It is evident that the sense 
of the words is: “the love which he had always cherished towards his own, he continued 


to cherish unto the end.” 
+ Concerning tho passages, comp. tle-History of the Passion, Matth. xxvi. 24, 


538 JoHN XIII, 3-9. 


of Satanic incitements, but also the inclination of the evil will, 
which coincides with these influences. Hence, the latter expression 
is to be regarded as the stronger. 

Ver. 3-5.—The Evangelist finely introduces the remark, that at 
the very time when the Redeemer was about to enter upon his 
lowest humiliation, he possessed a full and lively consciousness of 
his eternal glory. From the height of his Divine position, he 
stooped to the most profound depth of self-abasement. Having 
come from God, the Saviour descended to the deepest abyss, in 
order that he might raise humanity with himself to the sublimest 
elevation. This condescension to the nature and circumstances of 
another, and becoming as the object loved, constitutes the true es- 
sence of love. It remains to be observed that the occurrence did 
not take place before supper (as is plainly shewn by the words ἐγείρεται 
éx τοῦ deixvov), but the Lord rose fom supper upon the occasion of 
the strife between the disciples. This gave to the act an expressive 
character ; all would necessarily observe that he had some design in 
it, as it was unusual to repeat the washing of the feet after a meal 
had commenced. (λέντιον --- linteum. The Rabbins adopted it in 
a corrupted shape; they formed from it n-43%> or nusths, Comp. 
Buxt. lex. talm. p. 1148.) 

Ver. 6-9.—The conduct of Peter, in this washing of feet by the 
Lord, is in the highest degree characteristic. His very love and 
zeal for Jesus led him into error—an important point in proof that 
mere zeal is of no service in the cause of the Redeemer, but that, 
besides this, the surrender of all self-will is requisite. This failing 
often causes man, with an apparently good intention, to oppose the 
purposes of God. The energy in Peter’s character was associated 
with strong self-will, which even induced him to resist the repeat- 
edly expressed will of Jesus, because, from false modesty, he thought 
he must not permit a thing that seemed unsuited to him. (On this 
passage Calvin very finely says: laudabilis quidem modestia, nisi 
quovis cultu potior obedientia esset.)* Thus every virtue, even the 
noblest, if practised merely from self-will and not in the strength of 
grace, may become a sin ; “for love assumes nothing that love (the 
love of God in man) has not done (wrought).” Upon the rebuke 
of Christ, “thou hast no part with me” (οὐκ ἔχεις μέρος pet’ ἐμοῦγ, 
the wayward disciple does indeed yield, but now he strikes off to an- 
other extreme. Fellowship with the Lord was the element of his 
life, and he cannot renounce it ; instead, however, of doing just 
what is commanded in simple obedience, he goes much further— 
he wishes to have also his hands and his head washed. Psychol- 
ogy fully explains the circumstance ; for if the whim of the self- 


* “ A commendable modesty indeed, except that, with whatever amount of revereace 
obedience were preferable.” —[K. 


Joun XIII. 10, 11. 539 


willed man be restrained in one way, he immediately manifests it in 
another. 

Ver. 10, 11.—Here the Saviour gently corrects him, and imme- 
diately points out the symbolical meaning of the act, already 
plainly indicated by the language, thou hast no part, etc., which 
would surely be too strong if interpreted as referring merely to the 
refusal to be washed externally. Such ἃ symbolical signification, 
however, is, in modern times, almost universally denied, and most 
recently by Liicke. (The ancient authors were unanimous in ac- 
knowledging it.) This eminent expositor, who is joined by De 
Wette, even thinks that the words relate merely to corporeal bath- 
ing, after which, on proceeding from the bath, it was customary to 
give an additional washing to the feet alone, as they would easily 
become soiled. He makes the figurative sense of the expression 
καθαρός, clean, commence only with the clause : ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ πάντες καθα- 
pot ἐστε, but ye are not all clean. However Liicke’s view appears 
modified in the second edition, by his maintaining, in the most ex- 
press manner, the symbolical reference of the bathing and washing, 
although he adheres to the opinion that λοῦσθαι and νίπτεσθαι, in 
this passage, do not directly convey the spiritual meaning. Still it 
does not appear why they should not. Liicke cannot, it is conceded, 
prove the fact of the previous bathing ; the needy circumstances of 
the disciples render it improbable that they could adopt the habits 
of the higher classes ; καθαρός, clean, at the conclusion of the verse, 
certainly must be taken as having an immediately spiritual significa- 
tion, and therefore why not also the foregoing expressions ? The 
sudden transition from symbolical to literal language is unquestion- 
ably harsh. On the other hand, nothing is simpler than to suppose 
that the washing of the feet, which then took place, furnished Jesus 
with the occasion for passing on to his metaphorical description of 
their spiritual state. 

I have only two further remarks to offer on this subject. In the 
jirst place, I do not think that even the exclamation of Peter (ver. 
9) is to be understood as implying that he needed an entire purifi- 
cation ; for, just before (ver. 7), it was said to him by the Lord: 
ὃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ, od οὐκ oldacg ἄρτι, what I do, etc. The meaning of what 
Jesus did was not disclosed to him till afterwards. In the second 
place, purification and renovation, or sanctification, are not to be 
interchanged. It is evident that the symbol of washing, set forth 
also in the sacrament of baptism, primarily relates only to the remis- 
sion of sins (ἄφεσις τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν). This, however, is but a negative 
act, namely, the removal of hindrances; it is only by union with 
the creative Spirit (who, indeed, always operates upon the mind in 
immediate connexion with this) that it takes a positive form. Now, 
forgiveness is twofold—first there is the general remission with 


540 JoHN XIII. 12-19. 


which the life of faith in general commences, and secondly, the daily 
pardon rendered necessary, even in the case of believers, by the un- 
avoidable contaminations of the world. The former is denoted by 
λοῦσθαι, the latter by νίψασθαι. The terms renovation, regeneration, 
sanctification, are far more expressive of the positive aspect of the 
new life, and hence are not suited to the metaphor chosen here.— 
From the defective Peter, whose feet were defiled by the dust of 
sin, the Redeemer now passes to the miserable disciple whose entire 
old nature, with all its abomination, was still predominant—z. e., 
who had not yet been washed through true repentance and faith, or 
rather, after purification (for he certainly had experienced much in 
his heart), had again plunged into the mire of sin (2 Peter 11. 20, 
ff). Jesus in the immediate sequel (ver. 18, ff.) returns to this lost 
son, and expresses his grief concerning the sin that Judas was about 
to commit. ' 

Ver. 12-17.—After completing the process, the Redeemer again 
reclined at the supper, and instructed his disciples concerning the 
import of what he had done, He speaks first of the subordinate 
relation in which they themselves acknowledged that they stood to 
him. (The names διδάσκαλος = 35, κύριος = xq, Dan. ii. 47, iv. 16, 
according to the Rabbinical view, denote a relation of learners to 
teachers, which involved the obligation upon the former to serve 
the latter.) Hence it would follow that it was their duty to serve 
him; nevertheless, he had ministered to them from condescending 
love. (Comp. the Comm. on Luke xii. 37.) Jesus represents this 
very act as an example of humility (ὑπόδειγμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως) 
which they should follow. From the above remarks, I presume 
it is now quite clear that the meaning here relates to the gen- 
eral practice of self-abasing love. ‘‘ Could I, the master,” Jesus 
would say, ‘“‘thus humble myself, surely ye may well do so; the 
servant is not above the Lord.” In order, however, that knowledge 
may be raised to action, Christ, in conclusion, points out the fact 
that the blessing rests not on the former, but on the latter, Final- 
ly, this exhortation to self-abasement, like humility in general, is 
altogether peculiar to the Gospel, and finds in only a few religions 
even distorted analogies. 

Ver. 18, 19.—These two verses form a parenthesis, for ver. 20 is 
again connected with ver. 16, 17, as their completion. The above 
words of Christ did not apply to all the disciples. Judas was to be 
excluded. True, Jesus had washed his feet also, for had he passed 
over him alone, this would have directed attention to him, and, ac- 
cording to the synoptical Evangelists, it is clear (and it is confirmed 
by John xiii, 21-80) that the Lord did not publicly name him, but 
merely pointed to him by allusion. But the washing of the feet, in 
his case, lost its proper significance, since he was not clean—nay, 


Jonn XIII. 18, 19. 541 


inasmuch as he could regard with indifference the self-abasement of 
the Lord displayed in this act, it only hardened him in his wicked- 
ness. However, with all the Redeemer’s delicacy towards the un- 
happy man, it was necessary that he should prepare the disciples for 
the melancholy event, which, had they believed that Jesus himself 
did not know Judas, but had been deceived by him, might have 
proved a stumbling-block (πρόσκομμα) to them. The Saviour de- 
signed, on the contrary, to make this very circumstance a support 
to their faith, and for this purpose he gives them an exact account 
of the whole matter beforehand. The words oida ovc ἐξελεξάμην, I 
know whom I have chosen, primarily express the general higher 
knowledge of Christ respecting the souls of men, from which the 
more special follows. (The passages xiv. 29, xvi. 1, are quite par- 
allel with ver. 19. The only difference is, that in xvi. 1, the same 
thing is said negatively [ἵνα μὴ σκανδαλισθῆτε] as is here expressed 
positively [ἵνα morevonte].— Am’ ἄρτι, as in xiv. 7, is = ἄρτι with 
a strengthened signification, as is the case also with the form 
ἀπαρτί, or better ἀπάρτι, in profane writers. Comp. Passow in 
his Lex. under the word.—Concerning ἐγώ eiju, comp. the remarks 
on iv. 26.) It is remarkable that even in the betrayal by Judas, 
Jesus sees the fulfilment of a prophecy. (The same thing is ex- 
pressed in the intercessory prayer xvil. 12, by the same phrase: ἵνα 
ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ.) This one circumstance would necessarily prove 
a most powerful confirmation to the faith of the disciples. It con- 
vinced them that no accident, and still less any mistake, had brought 
the betrayer amongst the flock of disciples, but that, according to 
the appointment of God, this must necessarily take place. (Re- 
specting Judas, his election to office, and his sinful development, 
see the details in the Comm. on Matth. xxvii. 3.) The quotation 
itself is taken from Psalm xli. 10.* In the LX-X., however, it runs: 
ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου ἐμεγάλυνεν ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ πτερνισμόν, he that eateth bread, 
etc. (In the Hebrew it stands : spy ἜΣ ῬΛππ “nb 5558.) Tholuck 
supposes an independent translation of the passage by John ; but 
this seems to me improbable, for it does not appear that here (as is 
sometimes the case in Matthew) there is any connexion between 
the translation and the reasoning ; John might just as well have 
retained the rendering of the LXX. The Psalm itself indeed pri- 
marily relates to David and his betrayer, Ahithophel ; but in these 
circumstances is mirrored forth the more important fact of the 
Lord’s betrayal, and, according to this typical view, the reference is 
perfectly appropriate. The point to be discriminated is that “ eat- 
ing bread” (ἄρτον τρώγειν) must be taken spiritually, as Judas was 
«ot in a physical sense fed by Christ, who had no property. Every 
day, however, he received from the Redeemer the bread of life, and 
* Also in Acts i. 16, this passage is no doubt alluded te 


542 JoHN XIII. 20-31. 


on this account was bound to be faithful to him by a far stronger 
obligation than if he had only partaken corporeal food. (᾿Ἐπαίρειν 
niéovav —a metaphorical expression for insidious persecution.— 
’AAAd is used elliptically ; γέγονε τοῦτο, or something to that effect, 
should be supplied. 

Ver. 20.—In the following verse, the connexion altogether escapes : 
the reader, and interpreters are in fact pardonable, in assuming a 
gloss from Matth, x. 40 (where the interpretation should be com- 
pared), or at least in supposing that several intermediate parts of 
the discourse are omitted. Still, it has already been remarked by 
Tholuck and Liicke, after the example of Storr, that by referring 
ν. 16 back to v. 20 and regarding the mention of Judas as an epi- 
sode, we trace in the thought a partial connexion. For, whilst ver. 
16 contains that which would humble the disciples, viz., the state- 
ment that they must share in the Lord’s abasement—on the other 
hand ver. 20 furnishes an elevating view of their participation in his 
glory: the disciples entirely represent him, so that equally in his 
suffering as in his glory, they are as He 15. (1 John iv. 17.) 

Ver. 21-30.—Concerning the following verses, the necessary re- 
marks will be found in the Comm. on the History of the Sufferings, 
in the section that treats of the Redeemer’s last supper, because the 
frequent parallels between them and the synoptical gospels do not 
permit a separate interpretation. 


§ 4. Last Discourses or Jesus ADDRESSED TO HIS DISCIPLES 
Berore His DEATH. 


(John xiii. 31—xvii. 26.) 


We now come to that portiont of the evangelical history, which 
we may with propriety call its Holy of Holies. Our Evangelist, 
like a consecrated priest, alone opens to us the view into this sanc- 
tuary. It embraces the last moments spent by the Lord im the 
midst of his disciples before his passion, when words full of heavenly 
import flowed from his sacred lips, All that his heart—which 
glowed with love—had yet to say to his friends, was compressed 
into this short season. At first the interview with the disciples took 
the form of conversation ; sitting at table they talked together 
familiarly. But when (xiv. 31) the repast was finished, the lan- 


* The correctness of this connexion is strikingly confirmed by John xv. 20, ff. Here 
the Redeemer himself refers to the saying οὐκ ἔστι δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὑτοῦ, and 
interprets it as implying not merely self-humiliation, but the sufferings which the disciples, 
zike the Lord, would have to endure. This leads to the thought εἰ ἐμὲ ἐδίωξαν καὶ ὑμᾶς 
διώξουσιν, and the precise antithesis to this is formed by the words ὁ λαμβάνων ἐέν τινα 
πέμψω ἐμὲ λαμβάνει. 

+ Upon this whole section, comp. the exposition by Stark. Jena, 1814. 


JouN XIII. 31, 32. 543 


guage of Christ assumed a loftier strain ; the disciples, assembled 
around their Master, listened to the words of life, and seldom spoke 
a word (only xvi. 17,29). At length in the Redeemer’s sublime in- 
tercessory prayer, his full soul was poured forth in express petitions 
to his heavenly Father on behalf of his disciples. Meanwhile, his 
language retained the form of free communication, in which no such 
marks of designed arrangement are to be discovered, as would be 
found in a fornial discourse. 

It is a peculiarity of these last chapters, that they treat almost 
exclusively of the most profound relations—as that of the Son to 
the Father, and of both to the Spirit, that of Christ to the church, 
of the church to the world, and so forth. Much, however, of these 
sublime communications transcended the level then occupied by the 
disciples ; hence the Redeemer frequently repeats the same senti- 
ments in order to impress them more deeply upon their minds ; and 
in regard to what they still did not understand, he points them to 
the Holy Spirit, who would remind them of all his sayings, and 
lead them into all truth (xiv. 26). As to the first words (xiii. 31- 
38) the necessary observations respecting the moment at which the 
Redeemer uttered them, will be found in the Introduction to the 
History of the Passion. Hardly had Judas left the company, when 
the Saviour felt himself free in the pure circle of his own disciples, 
and broke forth in the language: “‘ Now is the Son of Man glori- 
fied” (viv ἐδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου). The whole paragraph here 
reported by John, from the conversations, is to be placed immedi- 
ately before the institution of the holy Supper, to which the ἐντολὴ 
καινή, new commandment (xiii. 34), in particular is beautifully ap- 
propriate. Then the institution of the sacrament belongs to the 
conclusion of the chapter (xiii. 88) and all the rest, from xiv. 1, was 
spoken subsequently. The only part of this section to which the 
synoptical Evangelists have furnished a parallel is the passage xiii. 
36-38, wherein the Redeemer directs the attention of Peter to his 
approaching denial. 

Ver. 31, 32.—Upon the withdrawment of Judas, the Saviour 
felt that the crisis had arrived, and, full of joy on account of it, he 
expressed himself in language of the highest triumph. Jesus re- 
cognized the glorification of the Son of Man and of God in him as 
complete. Here, however, we need, in the first place, an exact de- 
finition of δοξάζειν, glorify, in its relation to ὁγιάζειν, sanctify,* 
which latter expression (John xvii, 17, 19) appears to be used very 
similarly. The two terms have one fundamental signification, but 
this is modified according to the difference of the subject and object. 
Thus glorify (δοξάζειν), in the original sense, means to assign a 
glory (δόξα ;) but applied to the creature in relation to God, it can- 


* In reference to ἁγιάζειν, comp. the remarks in Matth. vi. 9. 


544 Joun XIII. 31, 32. 


not designate a real communication, for that which is created cannot 
give anything to God, and hence it means “‘to extol,” “ to acknowl- 
edge and praise the glory (δόξα) of God.” (Matth. v.16; Rom. i. 
21.) In like manner ἁγιάζειν primarily signifies “to separate” 
(ἀφορίζειν), particularly for a holy use ; but, when employed respect- 
ing man in relation to God, it can only denote “ to praise,” ‘ to 
extol” (1 Pet. iii. 15; Matth. vi. 9), ὁ, 6. to acknowledge as separate, 
holy. On the other hand, the sense takes quite a different modifi- 
cation, when the relation of God to sinful man is the subject of dis- 
course. In that case the idea of glorifying can have no primary 
application whatever, because that which is sinful, as such, cannot 
have or receive any glory ; the sanctifying (ἁγιάζειν) must precede. 
Thus we find it xvii. 17, 19, 22, where the Redeemer first prays: 
ἁγίασον αὐτούς, sanctify them (viz. the disciples), and not till after 
that (ver. 22) does he mention the communication of glory to the 
sanctified (ἡγιασμένοι). It is true that here the original signification 
of ἁγιάζειν is not destroyed, but, in this application of the term, the 
idea of making the sinful individual holy—which is not applicable 
in reference to God—is decidedly prominent. 

In relation to the Lord, the use of the word takes a form alto- 
gether peculiar. The δόξα (John xvii. 5) belongs to the Son, in his 
Divine nature, as to the Father, from eternity, but in his incarnation 
he resigned it. (Phil. ii. 6,7.) At the same time he was not like men 
in their sinfulness ; and hence in his case, it was not needful that the 
ἁγιάζειν should precede the δοξάζειν, On the contrary, the term ἁγιάζειν 
applied to the Son (xvii. 19) has the pure signification ‘‘ to devote 
himself, to offer himself up,” without the idea of making holy. But 
although Christ, even in his human nature, was sinless, his humanity 
contained a certain infirmity (ἀσθένεια): it did not possess immor- 
tality, it wanted perfect glorification, It was glorified gradually, 
and only by the indwelling of the Father in him. Hence the idea 
of glorification (δοξάζειν) has its full application in regard to him, 
It is not said: “ the Son of God is glorified,” but the Son of Man,* 
and in order that his glorification may not be conceived as something 
separate aud distinct from the Divine, the Lord adds: Θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη 
ἐν αὐτῷ, God is glorified in him; the Son is the true glory, the full 
radiance (ἀπαύγασμα, Heb. 1. 2) of the Father. The glorification is, 
however, described as already completed, according to the prophetic 
mode of expression, which frequently represents what is yet in the 
germ as developed. Strictly speaking, the work of Christ was not 
completed till his death, but the Redeemer, at the commencement 


* It might be inferred from this that υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, in this passage, is employed 
to designate the humanity of Christ in its state of humiliation, which has already (Comm. 
on Luke i. 35) been denied; but the δοξάζεσθαι is something fitting for humanity as 
such, so that the Redeemer, although he represented the ideal of humanity, yet needed 
glorification. 


JoHNn XIII. 33. 545 


of the period of his passion, transports his own view and that of his 
disciples beyond it, and looks upon the whole as already finished. 
It is very remarkable that Christ does not confine himself to this, 
but speaks of a still more elevated form of glory, the completion of 
which was also near (ἐὐθύς). This is expressed in the words ὁ Θεὸς 
δοξάσει αὐτὸν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, God shall glorify him in himself. Thus, 
whilst the glorification of God in the Son is viewed as already accom- 
plished, that of the Son in God is designated as yet tocome. This idea 
is often stripped of its profound character by év being regarded as put 
for διά (= the Heb. 3), and the result is a purely superficial sense; 
for that God glorifies through and for himself is self-evident, since God 
always operates only from and through himself. Here, in the ἐν ἑαυτῷ, 
in himself, as previously in ἐν αὐτῷ, the strict signification of ἐν should 
be retained, This sublime passage speaks of the mutual relation 
between the Father and the Son. In the first instance, the Logos 
(ἐνδιάθετος) goes forth (προφορικός) from the Father, and as such 
lives upon earth ina human form, in veiled glory. But all that 
proceeds from God carries within it, as the fundamental principle of 
its nature, the tendency to return. Thus the Son returns into the 
depth of the Divine being, but with sanctified humanity ; so that, 
in him and 19 human nature, humanity is united to God in its. 
true perfect idea, and received into the Divine essence. That which 
the synoptical Evangelists express in the terms “ to sit on the right 
hand of God,” is here put in a form more adapted to the readers of 
this Gospel, and is called the δοξάζεσθαι τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν 
Θεῷ, In a similar manner also Christ first glorifies himself in men, 

that he may then receive them glorified into himself. 

Ver. 33.—After this lofty flight, the Lord turns with touching 
feeling and condescension to the ‘deities whom he here for the first 
time calls texvia, “newly-begotten from the word of life,” and re- 
minds them that the attainment of his glory in their case, would be 
connected with the experience of painful loneliness. He speaks to 
the disciples in the same words in which he had addressed the Jews, 
Ye shall shall seek me, etc., but their import is changed. For in vii. 
33, although ζητεῖν, seek, as we saw, meant “ to seek from desire,” 
the statement that they would not find him was a threatening con- 
veying rebuke; but here the language, ‘‘ where I go ye cannot 
come” (ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω, ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν), is only an observa- 
tion made in love. And, as Jesus nevertheless'refers to the words 
that he addressed to the Jews, it may be seen that the Redeemer 
himself was fond of placing the same sayings in various lights, 


+ The author means, “the Son of Man’s being glorified in God.” The construction 
should be δοξάζεσθαι τὺν υἱὸν, ete.—-[K. 

* With respect to the glorification of Christ through the Holy Spirit, comp. the re- 
inarks on xvi. 14. 


Vou. IL—35 


546 JoHn XIII. 34, 35. 


Ver. 34, 35,—The connexion of what follows with the preceding 
is not quite clear. It appears to me, however, that the new com- 
mandment (ἐντολὴ καινή.) of brotherly love must be viewed as given 
for the interval between the Redeemer’s departure from his disciples 
and their future permanent reunion. This love was to be a distinc- 
tive mark of those who belonged to the Lord, and was to form, as 
it were, a compensation for the want of his presence. In this love 
he himself, the Lord, is invisibly present with his followers, since he 
is the principle of love within them. 

The chief difficulty in this passage has been occasioned by the 
expression “new commandment,”* it having already been com- 
manded in the Old Testament, ‘‘ thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
thyself.” (Comp. the Comm. on Matth. xxii, 39.) Here, at the 
very outset, we must reject those expositions which either force upon 
καινός another meaning, 6. g., “excellent,” “distinguished,” or in- 
terpret it in the sense of ‘‘ another command,” as if the Redeemer 
had intended to place this command, as a second, by the side of that 
respecting washing the feet as the first, or like Hichhorn, take the 
adjective adverbially in the signification “anew.” (On this subject 
comp. Winer’s Gramm. p. 435, note.) And as to remarks like those 
of Clericus, that here the new element in the precept concerning 
love, consists in the circumstance that, in the Church of Chrst, Jews 
and Gentiles were commanded to love one another as brethren, they 
really do not require a serious refutation. We might with more 
propriety attach importance to those interpretations which take 
ἐντολή, commandment, in another signification. Heumann and 
Semler in particular take it in the sense of mandatum, 7. 6. a be- 
quest, as it is rendered by the Vulgate John xiii. 34. (Comp. 
Knapp scr. var. arg. p. 381, in the treatise on this passage.) But 
it is evident that with the command: ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, that ye 
love one another, the idea of a bequest is incompatible, and John’s 
uniform employing ἐντολή, allows no deviation in this connexion. 
Hence there remains but one exposition for our closer consideration 
—viz., that proposed by Knapp, approved by Liicke and Tholuck, 
and hinted even by some of the Fathers ;} that the command of 
Christian brotherly-love was called new, because, as justice bore 
sway in the ancient covenant, love had held under that dispensa- 
tion but a subordinate place. According to this interpretation, the 
Old Testament commands men to love others as themselves, but 
the New Testament enjoins that we should love others more than 
ourselves. ‘This, it is said, is the meaning of the words “as I have 
loved you” (καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς): Christ offered up his life, and 

* Comp. the Programm. on this passage by Prof. Weber. Hale, 1826. 


+ Thus Euthymius says on this passage: 7 παλαιὰ ἐκέλευεν ἀγαπᾶν τὸν πλήσιον ὡς 
ἑαυτόν, αὕτη δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἑαυτόν. 


Joun XIII, 34, 35. 547 


therefore he loved men more than himself; in like manner ought 
Christians to love one another. But, as Tholuck has already re- 
marked in parenthesis, it is not right to insist upon man’s loving 
his neighbour more than himself. For, out of God he ought not to 
love himself at all, because, as such, he is in sin ; whilst in God, 
ὦ. 6. inaccordance with the true idea of his nature, his love to him- 
self is the very will of God, and it does not appear, how under 
these circumstances, he can love others more than himself. (On 
this subject, comp. the observations of the Comm. in Matth. xxii. 
39.) That true love which is the nature of God is everywhere one and 
the same ; it is not in one place more and in another less, but com- 
municates itself to every thing, just in the proportion in which God 
has appointed it, Hence, Matth. xxii. 29, it is expressly said con- 
cerning the law of love, that nothing surpasses it. The only point 
of difference to be observed is, that before Christ it was not com- 
pletely fulfilled. Accordingly, as the interpretation which we have 
thus considered is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of 
Scripture,* it only remains to adduce the parallels of 1 John ii. 7, 
8; 2 John, ver. 5; and after all, this is the most natural course, on 
the principle that every author should be explained by himself.t 
From these passages it appears that the formule: ἐντολή, παλαιά and 
καινή are used by John in a sense altogether peculiar, viz., so that 
that which is permanent, eternal, resting in the nature of God, is 
called alike old and new; the former because it is from the begin- 
ning (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς), the latter because it never decays, but constantly 
penetrates the soul with youthful freshness. The command re- 


* The distinction between the Spirit of the Old and the New Testaments does not 
necessarily imply a higher degree of love as strictly required in the New Testament 
than in the Old. It simply involves a greater prominence given to that element in 
human character, as it is also made more conspicuous in this portion of the Divine econ- 
omy. The law of love was new, precisely as the gift of the Spirit was new: not that 
either was unknown under the old dispensation, but because they wrought more partially 
and were not strictly its pervading characteristic—[K. 

+ Liicke and Tholuck, indeed, say that in the passages referred to, the idea “con- 
stantly new,” “never growing old,” as the meaning of καινός, simply arises from the 
antithesis in which it stands with παλαιός; but this seems incorrect. In the first pas- 
sage especially, the antithesis with παλαιός is merely explanatory; the sense itself 
does not depend upon it. Where that which is Divine is the subject of discourse, in the 
nature of the case καινός cannot be interpreted otherwise than as signifying “permanent,” 
“undecaying;” and hence nothing more is required than to apprehend ἐντολή not merely 
in its external aspect, but as meaning the substantial will of God. Kling (loc. cit. p. 
682) espouses the view of Bengel, who thinks καινός is not placed in antithesis with the 
Old Testament, but with the earlier and more subordinate forms in which Christ re- 
vealed the truth to his disciples. But if this injunction was given in the Old Testa- 
ment, surely it was still more conveyed in the early communications of Christ to his 
disciples. And to say, as Liicke does, that the precept of the Old Testament was im- 
perfectly known and practised, appears to me equally unsatisfactory. For here it is not 
the apprehension of Divine commands by mankind that is spoken of, but their essential 
contents themselves. 


548 Joun XIII. 36-38; XIV. 1. 


specting love in particular harmonizes admirably with this pro- 
found idea ; for it is not meant to enjoin that man should emit a 
love from himself, and that apart from, and in addition to God, he 
ought to love as God himself does ; this would be the same as say- 
ing that Gods must be added to God. On the contrary, the 
meaning of the injunction is this: there is only one fountion of 
love, that is God himself; from this fountain the creature should 
conduct a rill into his own heart, so that in the strength of this, he 
may love as God does. Hence ‘the mother of all other commande 
from the beginning, is the precept: thou shalt love God and thy 
neighbour! The injunction to cherish brotherly love represented, 
in a renewed form, the original eternal statute of the universe, 
which is preserved purely by love ; and thus the oldest law, the 
fountain of all the rest, is called a mew commandment. 

The love here described is by no means to be viewed as a mere 
feeling of happy obligation to the Lord for eternal life ; on the con- 
trary, it is also a living, self-sacrificing energy. In attaching value 
to that feeling alone it is easy to be misled, for it is transient in its 
nature, and passes away. But the strength of love may be mani- 
fested even without emotion, and this affords to the world the surest 
proof of the sacrifices of 1 Christian brotherly love is capable. 
(On this subject comp. the excellent remarks of Neander, Kirchen- 
gesch. Pt. i. p. 421, ff—lInstances of the cordial love of the first 
Christians to one another are adduced by Neander, in the Denkw 
Pt.i. p.97. Tertullian’s report of what was said by Pagans, respect- 
ing the love of Christians, is well known : “See,” cried they, ‘* how 
they love one another and are ready to die for one another !” 
Apolog. ο. 39.) 

Ver. 36-38.— Peter, referring to the observation of Christ con- 
cerning his departure (ver. 33), asks where he would go, evidently 
thinking (like the Jews on a former occasion) of a physical change 
of place which he supposed (as xi. 8) to be associated with danger. 
The Redeemer, without entering into positive explanations, inti- 
mates to Peter that he cannot follow him now, but that, at a future 
time, he shall. With this, however, the restless, self-willed love of 
the disciple is not satisfied ; he protests that he will follow Jesus 
through all perils, This renders it necessary that the Lord should 
admonish him of his weakness and foretel his denial. (In reference 
to this, comp. the History of the Passion, Luke xxii. 32.) 

Chap. xiv. ver. 1—Now between what has preceded and this 
fresh conversation™ (extending to the conclusion of the repast, xiv, 
31, and participated in by Thomas, ver. 5, Philip, ver. 8, and Judas 
James, ver. 22), we must place the institution of the holy Supper, 
as wo have already remarked. Since the Saviour had on that oc- 

* Comp. Knapp’s interpretation of this section in the scr. var. arg., p. 301, sqq. 


JoHN XIV. 1. 549 


casion spoken so plainly of his approaching passion and death, he 
might presume that the disciples would mow know where he was 
going (xiv. 5), which Peter, according to xii. 36, did not know; 
hence, supposing the previous institution of the holy Supper, there 
is nothing strange in the language : ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω οἴδατε καὶ τὴν 
ὁδὸν οἴδατε, whither I go ye know, etc. Moreover, this view being 
adopted, the words at the beginning of the discourse “ let not your 
hearts be troubled” (μὴ ταρασσέσθω ὑμῶν ἡ καρδία), do not appear 
at all out of place ; for the affecting representation of the distribu- 
tion of his flesh and blood had, as it were, placed them in the midst 
of his sufferings, and the first impression made upon their loving 
hearts was full of pain and grief. On this account the Lord gra- 
ciously consoles them, and exhorts them first to exercise faith. (Here 
the use of the word heart (καρδία), as also ver. 27, must not be over- 
looked ; the term soul (ψυχήν) might have been employed, of which 
the heart is the centre-point, but spirit (πνεῦμα) could not. Here 
the discourse has respect to purely human, personal emotions of 
mind, which affect the soul. On this subject comp. my Programm. 
de trichotomia nat. hum, in the opuse. theol. pag. 146, sqq.) 

Our verse presents some difficulty as to the connexion between 
“believing in God” (πιστεύειν εἰς Θεόν) and “in me” (εἰς ἐμέ). If 
the passage be taken as conveying a twofold exhortation—“ believe 
in God and also in me”—-so as to make πιστεύετε imperative in 
both instances, then the position of εἰς ἐμέ is unnatural, which in 
that case should follow πιστεύετε instead of preceding it ; besides 
which, faith in Christ is never added to faith in God, but the ob- 
ject of faith is God in Christ. On the same ground, moreover, we 
cannot well interpret πιστεύετε as indicative in both instances (‘ ye 
believe in God, and also in me”), not to mention that even the dis- 
ciples were feeble in their faith, Hence there is no alternative but 
to follow Erasmus, Beza and Grotius, who take the first πιστεύετε as 
indicative, and the second as imperative, the words then meaning : 
“ve believe in God, therefore believe also in me.” This view gives 
the fine sense that true faith in God is accompanied by faith in the 
Redeemer, because in him God perfectly reveals himself, so that 
faith in Christ appears to be only a development of general faith in 
God. There is, however, another way in which the passage might be 
rendered ; we might regard the first πιστεύετε as imperative, and 
the second as indicative, so that the meaning would be : “ believe in 
God, then will ye believe also in me. This interpretation may pos- 
sibly be the more appropriate of the two, since the very faith of the 
disciples in God wavered.* 

* In consequence of the relation between the Father and the Son, it might also be 


said, “believe in the Son, and thus ye will believe also in the Father;” faith in Christ 
proves fuith in God; this is shewn by the kindred passage, ver.7. Here, however, it is 


550 JoHN XIV, 2, 3. 


Ver. 2, 3.—After this preliminary exhortation to faith, the view 
opens, and there appears the prospect of a speedy re-union in the 
heavenly dwelling of the Father, as the true home of all the chil- 
dren of God. As to the construction of the sentence, there can be 
no doubt that the only correct interpretation is that which was first 
applied by Laur. Valla, subsequently espoused by Calvin and Beza, 
and in recent times adopted by Knapp, Licke, and Tholuck, viz., 
the stop must be placed after εἶπον dv ὑμῖν, The old expositors add- 
ed all these words to the sequel, this connexion being very much 
facilitated by the reading ὅτε πορεύομαι. (Thus the MSS. A. B. Ὁ. 
and several versions read.) But it isin the highest degree probable 
that this reading was formed only for the purpose of supporting that 
connexion, which must necessarily be abandoned, because it gives 
rise to a thought directly contrary to what follows. Then accord- 
ing to the above division of the words, the sense is this :—“ if it 
were not so, I would tell you plainly, I would not conceal such a 
truth from you.” Thus the language is an expression of the most 
open friendship. 

Now in the Divine dwelling itself, povai, mansions, are distin- 
guished (Luke xvi. 9, σκηναὶ αἰώνιοι, Heb. 77573.) This term unques- 
tionably denotes habitations, so to speak, for the individuals in the 
vast family of the Father. Thus Jude, ver. 6, οἰκητήρια, habitations, 
are ascribed to the angels. But when a modern theory of the uni- 
verse employs this passage in order to obtain scriptural sanction for 
its dream of a distribution of souls to all the planets and fixed stars, 
we feel compelled decidedly to oppose it. The Holy Scripture cer- 
tainly speaks of angels, heavenly beings, but not inhabitants of the 
stars ; least of all does it intimate that disembodied souls go 
to other stars. The residence in the heavenly mansions of the 
Father is, according to Scripture, only a state of transition ; at the 
resurrection all souls will return to the glorified earth, and heaven 
itself will dwell upon it. The clause, there are many mansions 
(εἰσὶ πολλαὶ μοναὶ) primarily relates to the disciples—‘“ there is 
room for you and all mine.” But from this epithet we may also in- 
fer, that the utmost variety will obtain in the celestial world, ac- 
cording to the degree of development reached by those who shall 
enter it. 

Although the entire discourse is marked by a simplicity calcu- 
lated to charm the artless, yet the ‘words ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον, prepare a 
place, cannot be regarded as conveying an altogether superficial 
sense. At the same time, it would be a difficult matter to deter- 


intended that the disciples should be led on from a general belief in God to the deeper 
faith in the Son; it is true, the former does not necessarily imply the latter, for the uns 
believing Jews believed in God although their faith was only external: but this faith in 
God, in its full truth, leads to faith in the Son, for the Son is only the manifestation of the 
Father, and hence he who knows God must also acknowledge him in the Son. 


JoHN XIV. 46. 551 


mine their precise meaning. All we can say is, that it certainly is 
incorrect to conceive of heavenly relations as arranged in rigid and 
inanimate fixedness, without internal progress ; and the term pre- 
pare must necessarily refer to something of the kind, since heavenly 
relations also find in the Redeemer their only efficient principle of 
progress. The promise respecting the preparation of the dwelling 
is followed by the announcement of the Saviour’s return for the 
purpose of taking them to himself. It is evident that here πάλιν 
ἔρχομαι, I come again, does not relate to the future advent of Christ 
at the end of the world ; because with this will be associated the 
resurrection of the body and the transformation of the earth, whereas 
in the present passage the subject of discourse is the elevation of 
believers to Christ in heaven. A comparison of xiv. 18, 28, xvi. 7, 
is sufficient to produce the conviction that here we are to understand 
by come the spiritual coming of Christ in the communication of his 
spirit. His death and subsequent resurrection, as also his renewed 
intercourse with the disciples, which succeeded the resurrection, are 
not here referred to; he views his future relation to the disciples 
only in two great parts, viz., as an external departure, and as an in- 
ternal spiritual return. However, it does not hence follow, as some 
have asserted (and in particular Fleck among the moderns, comp. 
the Comm. on Matth. xxiv. 1), that the doctrines of John concern- 
ing the last things assume a form altogether different from those of 
the synoptical Evangelists. John differs merely as having reference 
to the Gnostic bias of his readers ; where this was not the case, as 
in the Apocalypse, every one may see that his views perfectly har- 
monize with those of the other Evangelists. The purpose for which 
believers are received by the Lord, is finally that they may be 
where he is. (In regard to this subject, comp. the remarks on John 
xil. 26.) 

Ver. 4, 5—The words themselves, to which the disciples had 
listened, certainly might have enabled them to understand what de- 
parture it was that Jesus alluded to ; and still more the Supper, so 
recently instituted, might have served to explain it. But their ex- 
ternal inclination towards an ostensible manifestation of the Messiah’s 
kingdom prevented them from penetrating into the sense of his lan- 
cuage. Thomas ingenuously says that they do not know the place 
to which he is going, and therefore they cannot know the way. 

Ver. 6.—The answer of the Lord does not seem altogether suited 
to the question of Thomas ; he spoke of the departure of Christ 
himself (οὐκ οἴδαμεν ποῦ ὑπάγεις) ; but Jesus in his reply entirely 
passes over this point, and merely refers to the second part of the 
disciple’s words. Thus the Redeemer brings forward nothing but 
what is practically important, and throws all else into the back- 
ground. He presents himself to his perplexed follower iv his proper 


~ 


552 JOHN XIV. 7. 


dignity, aware that the knowledge of himself would lead to every- 
thing else that was requisite. Christ first calis himself ἡ ὁδός, the 
way (as x. 7, ἡ θύραν, in order to lead the thoughts of the disciples 
entirely away from any external road, and to fix them simply upon 
himself as the only Mediator who can conduct to the Father. He 
does not term himself a guide (ὁδηγός), because it is by his own ele- 
ment of life, which he imparts to his people, that he prepares the 
way to God. We come to God only, by becoming God-like, since no 
change of place, nor anything operating merely from without (as in- 
struction and example), can lead the soul to eternal good ; this can 
be accomplished only by the secret inward communication of the 
Divine nature itself. This communication, however, takes place 
through Christ, and hence he does not lead to God by meansof any 
thing foreign to himself, but through himself. The Lord further 
calls himself, not only the way, but the end, viz., the truth and the 
life. This is remarkable here, because, as the following words in- 
dicate, the Father is the goal to which the Son leads. But the 
whole of the subsequent conversation with Philip (ver. 8, ff.) makes 
it clear that the Lord here views the Father in himself and himself 
in the Father. Accordingly the design of these words was that the 
disciples should be directed to depend on Christ as the All-suffi- 
cient. When, however, Jesus speaks of himself as going to the 
Father and making a change of place (ver. 2), of course he refers 
only to his human existence, for, in his heavenly nature, he ever was 
in and with the Father and the Father in him. (Respecting the 
absolute signification of ἀλήθεια and ζωή, comp, the remarks on i, 14 
and i. 4.) : 

Ver. '7.—The Redeemer proceeds and directs the attention of the 
feeble among his followers to his relation to the Heavenly Father ; 
he shews them that in him the Father manifests himself to men most 
purely and perfectly, and that therefore they should seek God not out 
of him, but zn him. It would seem that the more profound among 
the disciples—Peter, John, and James—had already received a vital 
knowledge of Christ as God revealing himself ;* for here the Re- 
deemer confined his address to the weaker ones, anxiously careful, 
just previous to his departure, to bring these also up to a right ap- 
preciation of his character. To suppose a prolepsis of the future, as 
Tholuck suggests, seems to me too harsh. Here again γινώσκειν, 
know, is to be understood not of the reflective understanding, but of 

* Tt is true that according to xiii. 36, 37, even Pefer—at least when he spoke those 
words—appeared not to have penetrated into the meaning of the Redeemer’s language. 
Upon a comparison of this with the earlier declarations of the same disciple (Matth. xvi. 
10), it would seem that what he uttered in such instances proceeded rather from a mo- 
mentary impression upon the mind than from calm consciousness; a view which other 


proofs confirm. But at any rate, the three disciples whom we have named are to be ree 
gardei as having advanced to greater attainments than the rest. 


JoHn XIV. 8-10. 553 


that sanctified reason which has a direct perception of Divine truth 
as such ; as is shewn by the parallel between this and seeing. It 
may indeed be said that the words “ye have seen him” (ἑωράκατε 
αὐτόν), here relate to the act of beholding the present Christ. But 
this makes no difference, for still it is clear that the Father could 
not be seen in him with the eyes of the body, but only with spiritual 
eyes. As to the construction of the verse, there can be no doubt 
that the words εἰ ἐγνώκειτέ με, x. τ. λ., are to be rendered: “if ye 
had known me, then ye would know,” etc. Thus they imply that 
the disciples had not before known him in the full sense. The 
Lord, however, declared to them the possibility of doing so even 
now, and hence he adds: καὶ ἀπ’ ἄρτι γινώσκετε αὐτὸν καὶ ἑωράκατε 
αὐτόν. Here, καὶ is to be taken as adversative, and dz’ ἄρτι == ἄρτι 
in the signification ‘even now.” The opinion that γινώσκετε and 
ἑωράκατε are to be regarded as futures, and that dz’ ἄρτι must be 
translated “henceforth,” so as to give the meaning “from this 
period,” ὦ e., “ from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit ye will know 
me rightly,” is sufficiently refuted by what follows.* For the Lord 
just afterwards censures Philip for πού having known him, which it 
was impossible for Philip to do, if that knowledge would only be at- 
tained through the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. 

Ver. 8-10.—Philip (and with him certainly several of the dis- 
ciples) did not yet comprehend the words of the Redeemer. He 
wished to see the eternal, invisible God (i. 18), (who can be known 
only inthe Son) as a distinct Being besides the Son, perhaps in 
some splendid manifestation, as the prophets beheld hin—although 
even in their case it was the Son that was seen. The Lord now ex- 
claims in grief: “ have I been so long a time ?” etc. (τοσοῦτον χρόνον 
μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμι, καὶ οὐκ. ἔγνωκάς με ;)—language which plainly indicates 
that the struggle with the weakness of the disciples formed a part 
of the Redeemer’s sufferings. The incapacity of Philip to compre- 
hend the meaning of Christ excites our astonishment, but we are 
reconciled by the childlike simplicity of his request. His heart was 
pure as gold, but his understanding was still enveloped in darkness. 
Accordingly, the account shews how weak powers of apprehension may 
be associated with sincerity in the disposition and in the whole bent 
of life : and how in this case that weakness did not prevent union 
with the Saviour. The feeble, infantile disciple, nevertheless was a 
disciple, a true child of God! The formula here again adopted by 
John (comp. x. 88) “ I amin the Father,” ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ 
ἐν ἐμοί ἐστι (or μένει, comp, 1. 32), like the expression ὃν εἶναι (x, 
30), denotes, not a moral, but an essential union. This is here in- 

* A natural construction of this passage is, I think: “from this time it remains true 


that ye know,” ete., = “from this time, after the declaration which I have now made te 
you, ye may consider that ye know him,” ete.—[K. 


554 JoHN XIV. 8-10. 


dicated by the parallel thought, ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ, ἑώρακε τὸν πατέρα, he 
that hath seen me hath seen the Father, which obviously cannot have 
reference to a simply moral union, for in that case it must be said 
that we see the Father in every morally good man. It is true, we 
may perceive rays of the higher Light in excellent persons, but the 
divinity itself’, in living concentration, has appeared only in Christ 
Jesus. The two portions, however, of the sentence, ‘ I in the Fa- 
ther,” and “ the Father in me,” are by no means to be regarded as 
forming a mere tautological repetition ; both, indeed, designate the 
idea of union, of intimate oneness, but in such a manner that they 
at the same time express a mutual operation which takes place be- 
tween Father and Son. (Comp. the remarks on xiii. 32.) As the 
Father loves himself in the Son, so the Son again finds himself in 
the Father as his origin. The expression is profoundly spiritual, as 
resulting from the most vivid view of the relation between Father 
and Son. From this unity the Lord infers that all he does (his 
ῥήματα and ἔργα, John vi. 63) is done by God; and on ‘this is 
founded his claim to faith. It is as though Christ aud : “ Since ye 
are susceptible of that which is Divine, ye can believe, for in me it 
is manifested with perfect clearness and completeness,” Now here it 
might seem that works (ἔργα) and words (ῥήματα) are synonymous.* 
(Comp. the remarks on v. 36.) But, apparent as this is, the connexion 
with ver. 11 shews the contrary. Jor in that verse the disciples are 
referred to the works, evidently on the supposition that they cannot 
believe on account of the mere words, Here then, as everywhere 
else in the language of John, the works are the external aids to 
faith, which confirm what is spoken. Only let these be understood 
as comprehending not merely miracles strictly so-called, but all ex- 
ternal manifestations of the ministry of Christ (those alone excepted 
which were purely internal), and all difficulty in the use of the term 
vanishes. The apparent synonymousness of words (ῥήματα) and 
works (épya), ver. 10, arises simply from the circumstance that the 
jormer expression is used more comprehensively. Every work, as 
the more external, has its root in a word (although even an unut- 


* Comp. Stark’s Excursus on the idea of the ἔργα, at the conclusion of his interpre- 
tation of John xiii—xvii. (Jen, 1814.) He also incorrectly understands by the term the 
whole Messianic work of Christ, external as wellas internal. He confounds the singular 
and the plural, and does not distinguish that part of Christ's ministry which was externally 
manifest (the chief element of which consisted in actual miracles) from the znternal por- 
tion. Now, the former is the very means of proving the latter, and therefore the two 
cannot be identical. Licke, in his second edition, is ofopinion “ that τὰ ἔργα, the collect- 
ive name of which is τὸ ἔργον, mean first, in the wider sense, the entire Messianic work 
of Jesus, including his teaching, and then, in the narrower sense—as, for example, ver. 
11—sc touch of his δόξα as was exhibited in Divine works generally (his teaching being 
exceptea), and especially in his miracles.” But in these remarks the identity of ἔργον 
and ἔργα is assumed; whereas Christ proves by the ἔργα and ῥήματα the divinity of his 
person and of his ἔργον and hence the two expressions cannot be identical. 


Joon XIV. 11-14. 555 


tered, inward one); and inversely, the word is, so to speak, an opus 
ad intra, 

Ver. 11-14.—Here again, with ver. 11, the Lord introduces a 
direct exhortation to faith, (Comp. ver. 1.) The fact that this is 
based upon works harmonizes, as we have said, with the general re- 
presentation of Scripture. (Comp. the Comm. on v. 36.) But it 
is not clear how the Redeemer can have passed from the challenge 
to believe on account of the works, to the subject of working mira- 
cles by faith. lLiicke thinks that ver, 11 closes the intervening con- 
versation with Thomas and Philip, and that ver. 12 should be 
connected with ver.4. But this view certainly is erroneous ; for in 
ver. 4 the topic of discourse was the transition to the heavenly life, 
whereas here it is the working of miracles on earth ; where is the 
connexion ? On the other hand, πιστεύειν, believing, forms a natu- 
ral transition from ver. 11 to ver. 12, The Lord does not return to 
the train of thought commenced in the first verses, until ver. 15. 
According to my view of the passage, vers. 11 and 12 are shewn to 
harmonize thus : the disciples of Christ stood in a twofold relation 
to the works—first, they saw the works of Christ, and these were a 
means of support to their faith in his words—secondly, they them- 
selves also performed the same. (Comp. Matth. x.) True, the 
practice of these works presupposed a certain degree of faith, but 
then again they produced an increase of faith, for those who wrought 
them thus attained an immovable certainty that God was with 
them. So here, the works are viewed on the one hand, as proceed- 
ing from a certain degree of faith already possessed by the disciples, 
and on the other as eliciting a still higher degree. 

It is a striking declaration, that the believer shall do even greater 
works than the Lord himself. The ancient opinions concerning 
this passage, which made the greatness of the miracles consist in 
more astounding deeds, and in proof of which appeal was made e. g. 
to the cures effected by the shadow of Peter (Acts ν. 15), are to be 
regarded as out of date. There are two considerations that eluci- 
date this point in a very simple manner. The first is that process of 
development by which every phenomenon within the sphere of our 
temporal economy moves onward. As the Redeemer himself grew 
from childhood to manhood, so also his church goes forward, and the 
higher powers are naturally manifested in it just in proportion to its 
inward progress. The second is the fact, that the whole of the power 
displayed in the church is the power of Christ himself, so that, what- 
ever great and glorious achievements his people make, they accom- 
plish them purely through him. Thus he is not circumscribed, 
when it is said that the disciples achieve greater things than the 
Master, for he lives, operates, and perfects himself in them. Christ, 
perfect in himself, is, as it were, a new principle of life to the whole 


556 Joun XIV. 11-14. 


body, whose energy pervades it only by degrees, aud changes that 
which it penetrates into its own nature. This passage, however, 
cannot be employed as a proof that “ works” do not signify merely 
external acts, for its meaning surely cannot be, “the disciples 
shall carry on a greater redeeming work than I do”’—since they 
do nothing whatever of the kind. Here, as before, the works can 
only be external operations ; 6. g. to this category belong those ex- 
traordinary conversions of thousands, which resulted from the preach- 
ing of the apostles.* And this view perfectly harmonizes with the 
fact, that these operations of the disciples are made dependent upon 
the departure of Jesus to the Father. For in this act he entered 
upon the full possession of Divine power, and was thus enabled to 
afford his people continual support.f 

Now, in connexion with the agency of Christ, which imparts 
that support, there i a corresponding agency of the disciples, 
which receives it, viz., prayer. Hence the Saviour especially recom- 
mends the practice of it, and shews that the purpose for which it 
is heard is the glorification of the Father in the Son. (Comp. the 
remarks on John xiil, 32.) 

Here the highest significance is to be attached to the words 
αἰτεῖν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί pov, ask in my name (ver. 13, 14). In regard to 
the contents of this phrase, which is employed again xvi. 23-26, we 
remark, in the first place, that the right interpretation entirely de- 
pends upon the signification of the term name (ὄνομα). For al- 
though the expression occurs in the New Testament in very different 
connexions (in particular, besides ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, we find εἰς τὸ ὄνομα 
Matth. xxviii. 19, ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι, Luke xxiv. 47, διὰ τὸ ὄνομα, John 
xv. 21), still the fundamental meaning is the same, and the different 
particles merely vary its relations. (On this subject comp. the 
Comm. on Matth. xviii. 19.) Name, Ὄνομα, εὖ, used in application 
to God and to Christ as the manifestation of God, always denotes 
the Divine entity itself, in the whole compass of its properties, 
Accordingly prayer in the name of Christ is such as is offered in the 
nature, mind, and spirit of Christ. As such, however, it is not a 
thing dependent upon the resolution or good will of man (for no man 
can change himself, at his pleasure, into the mind and nature of 
Christ), but it presupposes the renovation of the mind by the power 
of Christ. When this power predominates in the soul, then and 


* So also Kling loc. cit. p. 683. 

+ Olshausen’s explanation of the μείζονα ἔργα, greater works, is unquestionably just. 
We need not perhaps draw any definite line, and regard it as indicating specially works 
differing in kind from the Saviour’s, instead of surpassing them in degree, or the reverse. 
It obviously refers to that larger measure of heavenly influence which after the Saviour’s 
return to bis Father, would accompany the labours of the Apostles, and render their 
ministry more gloriously successful than had been that of the Saviour himself. The 
main reference therefore of the word seems to be a spiritual one.—[K. 


Joun XIV. 15, 16. «BST 


only then, is man in a condition to obey its impulses, and accord- 
ingly to pray in the name of Jesus. In the second place, I would 
suggest the mode in which we may understand the promise of the 
universal and perfectly unlimited fulfilment of prayer offered in the 
name of the Lord (6, τι dy αἰτήσητε x, τ. A. τοῦτο ποιήσω). It cannot 
be the quality of the objects asked that*is here referred to; for al- 
though the believer will first bring before the Lord the affairs of the 
kingdom of God, yet it may also happen that he asks something ex- 
ternal for himself ; and if this petition be presented in the name 
of the Lord, it is heard as much as the other. The source from 
which the impulse to the prayer arises must be regarded as the cri- 
terion. If that impulse proceed from our own will, the prayer is 
not in the name of the Lord, even though it relate to spiritual 
blessings, which may be sought after, no less than earthly ones, 
in a thoroughly false spirit ;* but when the incitement to prayer is — 
derived from an inward Divine operation, that prayer is truly offered 
in the name of the Lord, and has its fulfilment in itself; For 
where God incites to prayer, there of course, in his veracity and 
faithfulness, he gives to him who prays. 

In conclusion, the expression ἐγὼ ποιήσω, I will do it, contains 
an argument for the Divine dignity of Christ, stronger than such as 
are contained in many passages ordinarily adduced as proofs of his 
divinity. The declaration, that he will accomplish what the disci- 
ples askin his name, presupposes omniscience as well as omnipo- 
tence. Here, again, however, of course that which Christ does is 
not to be conceived of as something apart from the operation of the 
Father, but the Father who dwelleth in the Son, he doeth the works 
(ver. 10). Hence there is no contradiction when it is said, xvi. 23, 
that the Father does what believers ask ; for the Father and the 
Son never work without one another. 

Ver. 15, 16.—The Redeemer now, ver. 15, returns to the subject 
with which he commenced his discourse, by shewing the disciples 
what he will give them as a compensation for his absence ; he im- 
mediately, however, pursues the train of thought thus resumed. 
With faith (ver. 11, 12) love must be united, which is not mere 
feeling, but manifests itself as power in the keeping of commands. 
(Comp. the Comm. on viii. 51, respecting λόγον τηρεῖν, keeping my 


* Hence in the passage xv. 7, ὃ ἐὰν θέλητε αἰτήσεσθε kad γενήσεται ὑμῖν, we are not 
to understand θέλειν as designating unlimited discretion, but as applying tothe state of 
the true child of God, since God himself produces the right will (Phil. ii. 13). 

+ The parallel statements in the Old Testament are to be understood in the same 
way: for example, Psalm cxly. 19, “The Lord will fulfil the desire of them that fear 
him ;” for, in accordance with their fear of God, they desire just that which God wills; 
what they desire contrary to the will of God, they do not desire as those who fear God, 
but as sinful men. The fundamental petition of the godly man always is, ‘Lord thy 
will be done!”” This prayer is never left unheard. 


558 Joun XIV. 15, 16. 


word, The keeping commands (ἐντολὰς τηρεῖν), however, is more 
limited than that, as “‘ commands” (ἐντολαί) are but a part of the 
more general “ word” (λόγος). It is also to be observed that in the 
phrase ἐντολὰς τηρεῖν, the signification of “ practice” is more strongly 
prominent, though the original profound idea involved in τηρεῖν, viz., 
that of retaining, inwardly preserving, the higher element imparted, 
need not be altogether dropped. For the commands of Christ are 
not, as those of the Old Testament, naked injunctions, like the 
categorical imperative, but precepts that pour spiritual life and 
power into the soul ; if Christ commands, he also gives to believers 
the power to observe his directions. (Hence the saying of Augus- 
tine, when rightly understood, contains a perfectly true idea: da 
quod jubes, et jube quod vis.) The transition, ‘“ And I will ask” 
(καὶ ἐγὼ ἐρωτήσω), 80 connects the sequel with what precedes, that the 
mission of the Holy Spirit appears as a remunerative consequence 
of keeping commands. The word “ask” expresses the idea of 
Christ’s intercession, 7. 6. the continuous activity of the Redeemer 
for the salvation of men. (A remarkable view of this is given xvi. 
26, on which consult the exposition itself.) 

Here, for the first time, we meet with the name παράκλητος" as 
a designation of the Holy Spirit (which name, however, the word 
ἄλλος applies also to the Lord himself); and accordingly it re- 
quires a close consideration. As to the etymological import of the 
expression, we have to choose only between two interpretations 
which amount to the same thing, viz., ‘‘ Comforter” and ‘ Interces- 
sor” (Advocate, Counsel). It has indeed been proposed to take 
παράκλητος in the signification of “‘ Teacher ;” but there are no 
means of proving that the idea of “ teaching” had been attached to 
the verb παρακαλεῖν and the substantives derived from 10---παράκλητος, 
παρακλήτωρ, παράκλησις. ILapaxadety first means “ to call near,” then 
in particular, ‘to call near for assistance,” and hence “ to help,” 
“to stand by,” “ to console,” which latter is nothing more nor less 
than spiritual aid.f A term so comprehensive appears to have been 
designedly chosen, because the operations of the Spirit are mani- 
fold: and for this reason it is not advisable to follow Tholuck in 
fixing upon ὦ single meaning. He expressly excludes the significa- 
tion ‘ Comforter,” and retains only that of ‘‘ Helper, Advocate.” 
But there certainly is no ground for this. Here the passive form of 
the word does not create the slightest difficulty ; it is perfectly par- 
allel in sense with παρακλήτωρ. The original signification, ‘ one 
who is summoned (for assistance),” advocatus, is completely merged 
in the general idea of ‘‘ Helper,” “ Supporter,” ““ Comforter.” More- 

* Comp. de Spiritu S. et Christo paracletis. In Knappii ser. var. arg. Ὁ. 125, seq. 


¢ Παρακαλεῖν ‘to call to one’s aid,” then, ‘to call to one” (by way of incitement), hence 
to cheer, encourage, console.—[K. 


JOHN RIV. 11 559 


over, the name “ Comforter,” as a designation of the Spirit, is emi- 
nently suited to the connexion of all those passages in which the 
term in question occurs, This term is associated with the mention 
of Christ’s departure, by which the disciples were left alone and in 
sorrow (as ὀρφανοί, ver. 18); hence the Lord promises them a Com- 
forter for their loneliness. But the idea of comfort implies that of 
efficient succour. The signification ‘‘ advocate,” for παράκλητος, is 
not so suitable as a name of the Spirit, but it occurs 1 John ii. 1, 
where we find the word as a title of Christ. There Christ appears as 
he who reconciles or propitiates the justice of God, and to this rela- 
tion that sense of the term is appropriate. In our passage also, 
Christ is called a παράκλητος of the disciples, but in a different sense, 
viz., as a consoling Helper, whose place the Spirit supplied at his 
departure. (The LXX. Job xvi. 2, render sh παρακλήτωρ, but 
Aquila and Theodotion have παράκλητος. The later Rabbins adopted 
the Greek word in the form sutprs. For example, Job xxxiii. 23 
they substitute it for yt. Comp. Buxt. lex. p. 1843.) Now the 
simple purpose for which the Spirit is sent is to secure the perma- 
nent consolation (iva μένῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) for the disciples, in contrast 
with the transitory corporeal presence of Christ. But Christ himself 
also was with them in the Spirit, for in the Spirit he spiritually re- 
turned. (Comp. the remarks on ver. 3.) 

Ver. 17.-—That this promise involves not merely something sub- 
jective, 6. g., a kind of cnspiration which would seize upon them, is 
shewn by the following verse. The Redeemer promises a new, 
higher principle, up to that time unknown (comp. the Comm. on 
vil, 39), the Spirit of truth (πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας), and predicts the 
future display of its powers. This expression implies not merely 
that the Spirit zs the truth itself, but that he produces the truth in 
those who receive him. For, as God himself ἐδ the truth, and the 
Son as the revealer of the hidden Father 7s the truth, so also the 
Spirit, the highest manifestation of the Deity, 7s in himself the 
truth, and communicates the truth only by imparting his own na- 
ture. This is further evident from the consideration that here again 
(comp. the Comm. on i, 14) the ἀλήθεια is not a truth to be appre- 
hended by the understanding, but the absolute principle of truth. 
Hence, in the communication of this truth, all ματαιότης of the nat- 
ural sinful life is overcome. Accordingly this Spirit is also de- 
scribed as permanently dwelling (παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένει) in the inmost 
depth of the life (ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται). The Lord could already appeal to 
the experience of the disciples (γινώσκετε αὐτό, not merely as future 
—“ye will know him,”—but “ye know him now, already”), al- 
though they had not yet received the Spirit, because they had 
already felt his preliminary operation in their hearts, in some happy 
hours of their intercourse with the Lord. The counterpar‘ to the 


᾽ 


560 Joun XIV. 18, 19. 


disciples is the world, by which term we are here to understand 
those human souls who exist in the natural element of life; these 
cannot receive the Spirit because they are unable to see and to know 
him. Hence the latter is the condition of the former, although it 
might have been supposed that, inversely, the reception must pre- 
cede the knowledge. This is true of the most profound form of 
knowledge, but nevertheless a preliminary knowledge is necessary 
in order to the reception of the Spirit. Such knowledge awakens 
the slumbering desire within. The world can no more receive the 
blessing of the Spirit until that desire which is the condition of 
reception is aroused, than a perfectly closed eye can admit the ma- 
terial light. 

Ver. 18, 19.—The Saviour now goes back to the same thought 
from which he proceeded, ver. 8, viz., that although he was indeed 
about to depart’ shortly, they would see him return. The pleasing 
expression, οὐκ ἀφήσω ὑμᾶς dppavoic, I will not leave you bereaved, 
refers to the relation of father and mother to their children. The 
Saviour regards his disciples as spiritual children, begotten through 
the seed of his word ; his departure should not leave them solitary ! 
Now, the coming of Christ here, we might be tempted to think, 
refers to his return to judgment, on account of the words ‘ ye shall 
live” (ὑμεῖς ζήσεσθε), and also “in that day” (ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ). 
But even the most superficial view of the passage shews that this 
theory cannot be maintained ; for at his second advent the Saviour 
will manifest himself, as a judge of the world, to all; not to men- 
tion other circumstances that oppose this interpretation, which, 
accordingly, has not found among the moderns a single defender, 
On the other hand, the very words ὁ κόσμος με οὐκέτι θεωρεῖ, “the 
world seeth me no more,” appear strikingly confirmatory of the hy- 
pothesis that refers the coming to the resurrection of Christ ; for 
respecting this event it is said also by the synoptical Evangelists 
that it should be to the world like the sign of Jonah (7. e., invisible, 
belonging merely to faith). But, in the first place, this exposition 
does not harmonize with the circumstance that the Redeemer, after 
his resurrection, was only a few days with the disciples, and then 
left them alone, whilst (according to ver. 17) the words I will not 
leave you, etc., are to be understood as speaking of an eternal fellow- 
ship which he promises to his own. Jn the second place, if this ex- 
planation of the passage be adopted, the language καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσεσθε, 
ye shall live also, retains its difficulty ; to refer it to the resurrec- 
tion of the apostles would be inconsistent, unless it is said that here 
(as in the synoptical Gospels, comp. the remarks on Matth. xxiv. 1) 
the general resurrection is contemplated as very near ; while, by refer- 
ring the words to an inward spiritual life, we have, for the same ex- 
pression, two different meanings in immediate proximity to each other, 


Joon XIV. 20, 21. 561 


Ver. 23, however, is quite decisive against such an opinion ; there the 
Lord, in reply to the interrogation of Judas, describes his coming as 
an inward presence in the mind ; this view has been adopted by all 
distinguished modern expositors. (Comp. the Comm. on Matth. 
xxiv. 1.) With the Spirit and iz him Christ himself comes, for the 
Spirit takes of that which is Christ’s. (Comp. the observations on 
John xvi. 14.) The world cannot see him (ver. 17), but his own 
perceive him. Accordingly the declaration, ‘‘ ye see me,” refers, not 
to the physical sight of him who has risen in the body, but to the 
spiritual perception of him in the mind. 

Ver. 20, 21.—The sequel also harmonizes only with this. Here, 
with the coming of Christ is associated the true knowledge of him 
and of the Father. Now this was not connected with the corporeal 
resurrection of Christ, but with the outpouring of the Spirit in 
which Christ (ἡ ζωή) communicated life to his people, and in it the 
Divine essence which is accompanied by the true knowledge. 

The object of this knowledge, however, is not only the relation 
of Christ to the Father (comp. the Comm. on ver. i0), but also the 
relation of Christ to the disciples. Although now, in reference to the 
latter, the terms “you in me” (ὑμεῖς ἐν ἐμοί), and ‘ being one” (ὃν εἶναι, 
xvi, 21), are employed, it still does not follow that these formulee 
did not denote any consubstantiality. On the contrary, the gnosis 
of John contains the profound idea that the Redeemer imparts his 
own essence, and in the holy supper, even his glorified humanity, to 
his brethren. This communication of his nature is pure love, and 
Schleiermacher very justly represents the communicative agency of 
Christ as forming Person, since the power of Christ imparts a higher 
heavenly consciousness, as the true centre of personality. The per- 
sonality of the Son himself, however, as the comprehensive element, 
takes into itself all the personalities of his people, and then again 
penetrates them with his life, as the living centre of an organism, 
from which life streams out, and to which it returns, Hence the 
words ‘‘ you in me and 1 in you” (ὑμεῖς ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ ἐγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν) again 
(comp. the remarks on ver. 10) describe a mutual operation in love. 
(The same John-like view occurs Rey. ii. 20, where the idea of 
reciprocal communion is delineated under the metaphor of a repast, 
and it is said: δειπνήσω per’ αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸς per’ ἐμοῦ.) Ver, 21, 
Jesus, in conclusion, goes back again to ver. 15, and points out the 
manner in which love must be evinced, viz., as fidelity in the keep- 
ing of the commandments ; not indeed in conformity with the 
Catholic-Pelagian theory—according to which here the purely legal 
point of view would be commended, as if man could love God before 
God loves him—but, as we have already indicated in our obser- 
vations on ver. 15, in harmony with the profound view of John, 
according to which the communication of the commandments is the 

Vor. IL.—36 


562 Joun XIV, 22-24. 


highest act of the love of God, the bestowment of eternal life itself 
(xii. 50). 

Here the question arises—how are the love (ἀγαπᾷν) of the Father 
and that of the Son related ? In the Father, Deity is always dis- 
played in its most general forms of manifestation, as the absolute 
Power ; hence the first intimations of love, which the soul receives 
from God, are the Father’s attracting it to the Son. On the other 
hand, in the Son, Deity appears in a higher form of manifestation, 
as unfathomable love and mercy; consequently the impressions 
produced by the love of the Son are deeper and higher. It is only 
of the Son that it is said : ἐμφανίσω αὐτῷ ἐμαυτόν, I will manifest 
myself to him, because the hidden Father manifests himself per- 
sonally only in the Son (in attracting to the Son, he reveals him- 
self only in his operations), as the Logos, the angel of his presence. 
(Comp. the Comm. i. 1, 18.) Finally, it is self-evident that ἐμφανί- 
ev, as above, θεωρεῖν (ver. 19, 22), can only be understood of disclos- 
ing to inward contemplation. 

Ver, 22-24—The sublime words of Jesus still surpassed the 
disciples’ power of comprehension ; to them the exhibition of Jesus 
as the glorious Messiah to the world was the very thing that appeared 
important, and precisely this Christ had denied ; this Judas knew 
not how to explain, and hence the following question. (Respecting 
Judas, who is probably identical with Thaddeus or Lebbzeus, comp. 
the Comm. Matth. x. 3.—The words τί γέγονεν correspond with the 
Hebrew m:n m2, in the sense “how comes it ?”) The Redeemer 
does not enter more minutely into the distinction between his future 
external appearance and his internal manifestation in the mind ; 
but he shews what is the only basis on which the latter rests. This 
involved an answer, although it may have been otherwise under- 
stood ; meanwhile the nature of the internal manifestation of Christ 
in the mind is so described that it must necessarily have been per- 
ceptible, even to the weak ; and it is added that what still remained 
obscure, the promised Teacher of truth should explain. (Comp. ver. 
26.) The meaning strictly expressed by the whole answer is the 
following : ‘‘ Adhere to what is essential, and direct your view from 
the external to the internal.’”’ That which ver. 23 first states posi- 
tively, respecting believers, is repeated negatively, ver. 24, in refer- 
ence to the world. Sincere love in keeping the word (comp. ver. 11) 
renders the individual worthy of the renewed love of the Lord ; the 
want of it renders him unworthy of that love. 

Here the more precise description of the new pro~f of love, ver. 
28: “we will come to him, and make our abode with him” (πρὸς 
αὐτὸν ἐλευσόμεθα καὶ μονὴν παρ᾽ αὐτῷ ποιήσομεν), is important. Some 
few critical authorities, indeed, have the singular, ἐλεύσομαι---ποιήσο- 
μαι, but it is easy to see that this reading is only a correction, it 


& 


Joun XIV, 22-24, 563 


being wished to remove the extraordinary idea that the Father will 
make an abode in the believer.* One thing in this language cer- 
tainly is remarkable, viz., that the Lord also speaks of a coming of 
the Father to the believer, whereas we must suppose the Omni- 
present, as such, to be always near, nay, to be operating in man, 
even in the unbeliever and the wicked. But this general relation 
of God to man is a very different thing from what is here denoted. 
In this place the Lord refers to the revelation of God as a Father 
to the soul, which does not take place until the Spirit comes into 
the heart and teaches it to ery, “ Abba, Father.” (Rom. viii. 15.) 
It certainly is peculiar to our passage that this is represented as a 
coming of the Father himself, and not merely as his operation. 
Ordinarily it is said only of Christ that he should be ‘formed with- 
in” us, that we must ‘‘ put him on” as Paul expresses it. For in 
Christ the very mode in which the Divine Spirit acts is to call forth 
a new, higher, heavenly consciousness, Christ reproducing himself 
in the soul. But although the expression is unusual, it is justified 
to the Christian consciousness in a very simple manner. Where 
the Son is, there of necessity is the Father also, as well as the 
Spirit, for the three are one, or different forms of manifestation of 
the one Divine being. Thus, with the creation of the new man, the 
Trinity itself is manifested in him, although indeed the gradations 
of Christian development presuppose the predominance of one or 
the other form of Divine agency (1 John ii. 13, 14). 

Making an abode implies the idea of permanent indwelling, 
whilst the operations of the Spirit under the Old Testament were 
but transient. (Hence Paul terms believers temples of God, 1 Cor. 
ii. 16, 17, and 2 Cor. vi. 16.) This passage is further instructive, 
as it shews in how deep and comprehensive a sense the defining 
term ‘‘ Person,” fixed for the doctrine of Trinity, must be under- 
stood,} if it is to correspond with the scriptural idea of the doctrine 
of Father, Son, and Spirit. The Father, Son, and Spirit live dif- 
fused in the whole body of believers: thus Spirit lives and operates 
in Spirit, without losing its specific character and its unity of con- 
sciousness. But it is impossible to combine with the representation 
of Scripture the puerile notion concerning the Trinity—always com- 
bated indeed by the more profound of the Fathers, e. g., by Augus- 
tine—which conceives of the three persons as individualized entities 


* This profound idea, the proper point of the Gospel, had already been caught by some 
of the more profound Rabbins, from the intimations of the Old Testament. (Comp. the 
four Programs of Danz on our passage, respecting the Schechinah cum piis cohabitans, 
in Meuschenii N. T. ex Talmude illustratum, Lips, 1736, 4, pag. 701-739.) In the most 
recent times, Schleiermacher, in his Glaubenslehre, has finely developed this thought 
from the idea of Divine love as the communication of itself. 

{ On this subject comp. the particulars in the Comm. on Matth. xxvii. 19. 


564 ' Joun XIV. 25-27. 


existing beside one another. (Comp. also the remarks on Matth, 
xxvill, 19.) 

Ver. 25, 26._-To these words, which express all that Jesus felt 
he could say on the subject to his disciples under present circum- 
stances (παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένων), he adds the promise of the Spirit, who 
would supply whatever was wanting. (Comp. xvi. 12, 13.) Here 
it is said of the Spirit, that the Father sends him in the name of 
Christ (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Χριστοῦν, ὦ. 6. as the Spirit of Christ (Rom. viii. 
9) in whom the Father testifies concerning Christ (see the observa- 
tions on xv. 26), and takes from him that which is his own (comp. 
τ the Comm. xvi. 14.) Doubtless the personality of the Holy Spirit 
of which many have found it so difficult to conceive (although 
Spirit is the very thing itself that is personai), is supported not so 
much by the word ἐκεῖνος, which refers to παράκλητος, as by this per- 
sonal designation itself. (The importance of the masculine ἐκεῖνος, 
is more apparent in the passage xvi. 13, because in that case παρά- 
κλητος stands at a considerable distance, viz., ver. 7.) But the idea 
of personality must be viewed according to the suggestions made 
ver. 28. 

This Spirit is described as the Teacher of a// truth. (Comp. the 
remarks on xvi. 13.) Here the “ all things” must not indeed be ex- 
tended to all conceivable concrete minutiz ; but just as little should 
it be limited to a few abstract dogmas, On the contrary the sub- 
ject of discourse here is the principle of all essential truth, with 
which we receive the true knowledge of God, and in him of all 
things.* This Spirit, for the very reason that he is Divine, teaches 
the same truth as that propounded by Jesus, the revealer of the 
hidden God ; and hence also the Spirit could awaken those words 
of Christ which lay, like slumbering germs, in the minds of the dis- 
ciples, and bring them to living consciousness, The reality of this 
Spirit, and the actual impartation of the same to the disciples, 
form the ultimate ground on which all the credibility of their com- 
munications is founded. As the same Spirit still continually oper- 
ates in the souls of men, he continually convinces of the eternal 
truth of that which the church has handed down in the apostolic 
writings ; and this testimony of the Spirit is their only impregnable 
basis. No historical demonstrations of the authenticity of the Holy 
Scriptures gain their true significance until this foundation of faith 
rests in the mind ; for one may hold all the books of the Bible 
to be genuine, without believing in them, as we may acknowledge 
the genuineness of the Koran without putting faith in it. 

Ver. 27.—The Saviour, hastening to depart, ver. 31, once again 

* Respecting the relation of the prophetic ministry of Christ to the Holy Spirit, 


Augustine finely says: dicente Christo verba capimus, docente spiritu eadem verba intel- 
ligimus. 


Joun XIV, 28, 29. 565 


(comp. ver. 1) consoles them and promises them, as a kind of sacred 
legacy, his peace. Here the Lord certainly may have alluded to the 
ordinary form of salutation on coming or going (t=> 8593} but even 
where the words εἰρήνη ὑμῖν, peace to you, are spoken strictly as a 
salutation, in those very instances, when uttered by him, they have 
their deeper significance and their essential force. With the utter- 
ance of the word, the accompanying influence was imparted, and a 
breath of peace pervaded the hearts of the disciples. Here, how- 
ever, the repetition itself (ἀφίημι and δίδωμι εἰρήνην) indicates some- 
thing more than adieu ; the language conveys a condensed view of 
the entire ministry of Christ, which in departing he dedicates to his 
disciples. (Δίδωμε is the stronger expression ; while ἀφίημι is rather 
the negative term, δίδωμι expresses positive impartation, bestow- 
ment.) This is shewn by the comparison between his peace and that 
of the world; the latter consists in the undisturbed enjoyment of 
the transitory life of sense, which must necessarily be of short du- 
ration, because that on which it is founded passes away.* The 
peace of Christ rests in the enjoyment of eternal good, and hence, 
like that good itself, it is imperishable, nor can it be lost, even 
amidst all the storms of external life. The Redeemer produces this 
state of inward peace, as he bears it in himself (hence the εἰρήνη is 
emphatically termed ἐμή) first by the remission of sins (ἄφεσις τῶν 
ἁμαρτιῶν) which removes the element of discord from the soul, and 
then by the impartation of his own Divine life ; for only the Di- 
vine can love and enjoy what is Divine. Accordingly the words 
“my peace” imply that the peace of believers is the very peace 
which the Redeemer enjoys in himself, for love leads him to impart 
every principle of happiness that he possesses, without reserving or 
grudging anything. 

Ver, 28, 29.—All the consoling words of the Redeemer could 
not restrain the distressing grief Fae in the first instance seized 
the minds of the disciples at ‘the thought of his approaching depart- 
ure ; and it was not intended that they should. Their sorrow was 
just, and it was in the heart of Jesus himself ! Yet from a higher 
point of view he summons them to rejoice. This produces an inex- 
pressible mixture of pain, sorrow, and joy. The idea that he 
mentions his departure in order to assure their faith in the hour of 
distress, has already occurred, xiii. 19, and is again repeated, xvi. 1. 


* Kling’s hypothesis (1. ¢. p. 685)—that the contrast with the peace of the world only 
relates to the fact that the ordinary form of salutation was powerless, whilst the words 
of Christ exerted a power—is unsatisfactory ; because the reference to that form of salu- 
tation can only be viewed as a slight allusion. The contrast is more pointed than if it 
consisted merely in an opposition between that which has power and that which has not; 
it opposes the true to the false and decepiive. 

+ In this profound sense, the Messiah is called, Isaiah ix. 5, Ὡ " Sumy, (Comp. Phil. 
iv. 7. 9, where the εἰρήνη Θεοῦ is described as ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν.) 


566 JoHn XIV. 28, 29. 


Yet it is a peculiar feature in the passage that one cause for rejoi- 
cing in his departure was that he was going to the Father ; “ be- 
cause,” he adds, “‘my Father is greater than 1 : (ὅτι 6 πατήρ pov 
μείζων μού ἐστι). These obscure words are, according to my convic- — 
tion, ordinarily misunderstood, and Kuinoel and Liicke in particu- 
lar still do not view them correctly. Tholuck and Meyer, on the 
contrary, agree with me. The former two of these scholars explain 
the language as intended to convey a consolation to the disciples 
concerning the departure of Christ ; they regard μείζων, greater, as 
referring to the Divine Omnipotence, and take the sense of the words 
in the following shape : “‘ my departure is good for you, for the Al- 
mighty Father can defend you better than I.”* But such a view 
is manifestly not in harmony with the previous thought in the verse, 
wherein the joy which the Redeemer requires his disciples to mani- 
fest. concerning his departure, is founded on their love to him. If 
the view in question were correct, the joy must have been based 
upon love to themselves. Besides which, with this interpretation, 
we lose entirely the exceeding delicacy of thought, expressed in the 
circumstance that the Redeemer claims the love which they bear to 
him, for their consolation. Accordingly the sense is to be taken 
thus: ‘ Ye love me; then rejoice that I go to the Father, for it is 
good for me.” 

Here, however, a further question arises, viz., how can the words 
“oreater than I” (μείζων μού ἐστι) express this thought? If the 
passage be considered without doctrinal prejudice, the answer is 
very simple. The Son is born from the essence of the Father, but not, 
inversely the Father from the Son; hence the Father is the cause 
of the Son, but the Son is not the cause of the Father. Now since 
the Son proceeded from the Father (xiii. 3) there was necessarily in 
him the desire to return to the Father, as every being is attracted 
to its source ; accordingly the return to the Father was the satis- 
faction of the desire felt by the Son who longed after his source, and 
this is the relation of the Son to the Father indicated by the words 
“oreater than I.” Thus it is self-evident, from what has been said, 
that this expression does not favour Arian notions of Christ ; but 
we must not, in order to refute such opinions, resort to views which 
are obviously at variance with the train of thought. The orthodox 
Fathers took the passage as relating to the human nature of Christ, 
but when the return to the Father (which he therefore accomplished 
as υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ) is spoken of, it cannot be the human nature alone 
that is referred to. The expedient hit upon by Calvin, who rightly 
perceived this, certainly is not satisfactory. He says : pro infirmitatis 
nostra captu se mediwm inter nos et Deum constituit. According 
+o that the Redeemer, by way of accommodation to a weakness of 

* Thus understood, the passage would be parallel with the words, xvi. 7. 


Joun XIV. 30, 81. 567 


the disciples, uttered an Arian sentiment ἢ The words, on the con- 
trary, relate quite simply to the real existence of the difference be- 
tween Father and Son, which, as the church has always held, is no 
other than this: that the Father is ἀγέννητος, unbegotten, the Son 
γεννητός, begotten. Nor must the idea of subordination be rigidly 
avoided ; for if this difference is to be called subordination, as in- 
deed it may be, it is undeniable that the doctrine of the church 
does not fail to recognize it. Ordinarily, however, subordination is 
understood as implying a difference of nature between Father and 
Son, and it is against this view that the church, in denying all sub- 
ordination, has justly wished to contend. 

Ver. 30, 31—The Lord now winds up the conversation, by giv- 
ing the disciples a renewed assurance that his departure is close at 
hand, and by pointing again to the conflict which awaited him. In 
this very conflict, however, Jesus finds the purpose of his coming ; 
it is the command of the Father to endure it (xi. 50), and hence 
the world may see in it his love and obedience to God. Upon this 
follows the conclusion of the repast (xii, 4) with the summons to 
Gethsemane (xviii. 1). Here the only thing requiring our close 
consideration is the language in which the Lord describes the strug- 
gle about to take place. The foe to be vanquished is the Prince of 
the world : as he approached the Redeemer at the commencement 
of his ministry and tempted him with the snare of pleasure (Matth. 
iv.), so now, at the end of his work, he appeared to him and tempted 
him by means of fear. (Compare the History of the Passion. 
Luke xxii. 53.) "Feyeo@a therefore expresses the hostile advance. 
(Concerning ἄρχων τ. x, comp. the remarks on xu. 31.) But, as in 
the former case, so here, the attack was fruitless : καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει 
οὐδέν͵, and he hath nothing in me. It isevident that καί in this sen- 
tence must be taken as adversative ; the words “ he hath nothing 
in me,” however, are not so clear. Semler, Storr, and Morus, who 
are followed by Tholuck and Liicke, supply after οὐκ ἔχει, according 
to Luke xii. 4, the infinitive ποιεῖν, in the sense, “‘ but he can do 
nothing effectually against me.” In the first place, however, I think 
this ellipsis is without example ; in this formula: οὐκ ἔχειν ποιεῖν, 
the word ποιεῖν is the very one that contains the main idea, which 
cannot possibly be omitted. Hence I should prefer supplying ééov- 
ciav, but that, secondly, the expression ἐν éuot is opposed to this, as 
to the first supplement. We cannot substitute εἰς ἐμέ for ἐν ἐμοΐ, 
without arbitrariness, (Guided by the latter phrase, we gather from 
these words a very profound doctrinal and ethical meaning. Jesus 
says: ‘but he possesses nothing within me, he can call nothing his, 
i. e., he cannot assume any power over me.” This involves the idea 
that the Prince of Sin can only rule where there are germs of sin on 
which he can work. The sinless Redeemer gave his life in death 


568 JoHn XV. 1, 2. 


voluntarily; no one could take it from him (x. 18). Nay, accord- 
ing to what he intimated above (xiv. 23), respecting the commu- 
nication of his sinless nature to believers, his words suggest the 
further thought that the Prince of this world finds nothing in 
them which he can call his own ; and thus their victory also in every 
conflict is secured. 

Chap. xv. 1, 2—How we are to understand the words ἐγείρεσθε, 
ἄγωμεν ἐντεῦθεν, arise, let us go hence—according to xviii. 1, there can 
be no doubt. That passage is the first place in which the egress of 
Jesus from the city is related, and accordingly here the account can 
refer to nothing but the rising from supper and the preparation 
to depart. The solemnity of the moment when the Redeemer rose 
to leave must have produced the most powerful effect upon the 
hearts of the disciples! Up to this period they were united in a 
peaceful band, and the beloved Master was yet with them ; what a 
separation awaited them in a few hours! The anticipation of this 
arrested their steps ; the assembly broke up, but no one moved ; 
they stood in silence around the Lord. Then it was that he again 
opened his lips, and delivered the following discourses, which made 
an indelible impression on the mind of the beloved disciple. It may 
be that some incidental circumstance led Jesus to begin with this 
comparison ; perhaps a twig stretched through the window into the 
room where he was, or the apartment was decorated with the foli- 
age of the vine. Rosenmiiller (in the new Exeg. Repert. 1. 172) has 
offered a peculiar explanation of the choice of this metaphor. Ac- 
cording to Josephus (Antiq. xv. 11, B. J. v.5), on the door, 70 cubits 
high, which led into the Holy Place of the Temple, an artificial vine 
was spread out, the branches and leaves of which were made of 
precious metal, and its clusters of diamonds and pearls. Doubtless 
this vine was, according to prophetic passages, intended as a type of 
Israel, often called a vine of the Lord. Now Rosenmiiller thinks it 
was by the sight of this that Jesus was led to institute the com- 
parison before us. (Comp. Jerem. ii. 21 ; Ezek. xix. 10; Joel i. 
7; Ps. lxxx. 9, ff ; Mark xii. 1.)* But, in order to justify this, it 
must be supposed that Jesus uttered the following words in the 
Temple ; but, since it was night, it is not probable that he again 
visited the’ Temple. He quitted it when the voice from heaven (xii. 
12) had inaugurated him as Messianic King on the holy hill (Ps. 
i. 6). 

The comparison itself is so drawn that metaphorical language 
alternates with explanation ; and in form also (like that of the 
Shepherd, John x.) it is rather a similitude than a parable. But 
the fundamental idea that lies at the bottom of the whole compar- 


* Mention is made of the vine, and of treating its clusters, in the bad sense also, to 
designate Antichrist and his confederates, (Comp. Rev. xiv. 18, ff.) 


JouHn XV. 3, 4. 569 


ison is this: the intimacy of the union between Christ and his peo- 
ple is as great as if one life, one blood, flowed through them all, and 
this very union is the only condition under which true fruits can be 
borne. In the same sense Paul compares all believers to an organic 
body, in which Christ is the Head, and the several believers are the 
members. Hence the similitude is designed to recommend the pre- 
servation of that spiritual fellowship with the Lord (κοινωνία accord- 
ing to the wsus loquendi of John. Comp. the Comm. 1 John 1. 8) 
without which the disciples could not hope to have their efforts 
crowned by a blessing. (Respecting ἀληθινός, comp. the Comm. 1. 9, 
Every physical vital-unity of which the vine forms an example, is, 
as it were, a copy of the spiritual vital-unity of believers ; accord- 
ingly this is, in the full sense of the word, a living spiritual growth. 
The selection of the vine, as an illustration of these thoughts, is 
well devised, for the vine is the most spirdtual of plants ; its juice 
yields wine, which the Redeemer, in the Supper, calls his blood. 
The Creator of this vital communion is the Father, who is frequent- 
ly represented in this relation. [Comp. the remarks on Mark xii, 
11 The expression γεωργός is here to be taken as equivalent to 
the more special ἀμπελουργός.) 

In the following verses the metaphor is carried out with special 
minuteness. The vine-dresser requires fruit from the vine-branch 
(Aja, a frail, slender branch, perhaps from «Adw, to break); if it 
yield none, he removes it. Here we must guard against limiting 
the idea of fruit (καρπός) to legal works ; true, external actions are 
not to be excluded, but they must proceed from true faith and the 
power of the Spirit of Christ (ver. 5); the branch must receive the 
sap from the root, and then it is enabled to bear fruit. This in- 
volves an apt representation of the receptive agency of the believer 
in the life of prayer. Accordingly, the fact, that no fruit is borne, 
is always a presumption that already the internal vital communion 
with the Redeemer has been dissolved (ver. 6), even though the ex- 
ternal form is preserved. This, however, is finally followed by the 
severance of the external connexion, which is the κρίσις. (Ver. 6 
contains a description of this, under the ordinary image of burning.) 
On the other hand, in the case of that which-bears fruit, the Divine 
agency takes a promotive form ; even in the sincere believer there 
are sinful elements ; these are gradually penetrated by the sanctify- 
ing energy of Christ, and thus the whole man is rendered fruitful 
unto good works, : 

Ver. 8, 4.—It is a striking fact that the disciples are already 
called καθαροί, clean (xii. 10), whereas thus far they can only be 
viewed as branches which, although fruitful, stood in great need of 
purification ; for still, even a Peter could fall. But here, as before, 
they are called “clean on account of the word” (καθαροὶ did τὸν λό- 


570 JoHN XV. 5-8. 


yov), only in order to give them the consolation that they should not 
be severed. In these very words it is intimated that the actual pu- 
rification yet awaited them, but on account of the word of Christ 
they are already regarded as pure (καθαροί---λογίζεται αὐτοῖς ἡ καθα- 
ρότης, according to the analogy of Rom. iv. 3). Now, λόγος, word, 
does not signify a definite discourse of Christ, but his teaching and 
ministry in general. For this reason, also, the expression τὰ ῥήματά 
μου, my words, ver. 7, is employed. And again the peculiarity of 
his teaching does not consist in the circle of ideas which it commu- 
nicated, but in the spiritual power that accompanied it, and pene- 
trated the souls of all who were susceptible with comfort full of 
fountain-vigour. This power was a purifying element, and in its 
reception lay the security that what was wanting would soon be 
supplied ; hence the one important point, in order to continue in 
constant union with the source of strength, was abiding in Christ 
(μείνατε ἐν éuot), The branch cannot yield fruit if unconnected 
with the root (ἀφ ἑαυτοῦ), and in like manner the believer cannot, in 
the absence of living connexion with Christ. (Hphes. v. 30, ὅτι μέλη 
ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ.) 

Ver. 5-8.—This idea is specially amplified in the verses now fol- 
lowing, of which the words ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ ob δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν, for 
apart from me ye can do nothing, contain the central truth.* 
Here, in the first place, we must not lay stress upon the verb ποιεῖν, 
do, as if, although man cannot do anything without Christ, yet 
he could will or think. For it has already been remarked, that in 
this discourse, the Lord (in speaking of the καρπόςγ refers, not merely 
to the external phenomenon of action, but also to the internal move- 
ments of the mind. The latter are always the causes of the former. 
If man could, whenever he pleased, and without the power of 
Christ, create in himself noble, holy inclinations and resolutions, 
then he could also act without Christ. On the other hand, οὐδέν, 
nothing, is to be taken as very emphatic. For if it be alleged that 
it is not absolutely all acting, but only what is good that is impos- 
sible without Christ, still it must be confessed that only that which 
is good is real (ὄντως ὄν), while evil is null and futile (the μὴ ὄν). 
Or should it be said that man can perform many kinds of good ac- 
tions without Christ—as e. g., the heathen did by nature the things 
contained in the law (Rom. ii. 14)—it must not be overlooked that 
Christ, as the Logos from eternity, who “ lighteth every man” 
(John i. 9), is in all ages the power that excites to all good. Οὐδέν 

* Meyer's interpretation of this saying is entirely erroneous. He thinks that the 
meaning does not relate to the moral and religious life at all, but merely to the exercise of 
the apostolical vocation. There is nothing in the context to authorize this hypothesis 
On the contrary, the metaphorcial reference to the vine, and to the bearing of fruit by 


the branch that continues in it, is evidently intended to represent the life of believers in 
every respect as dependent upon their connexion with Christ. 


Joun XV. 9, 10. 511 


therefore maintains its widest signification. No one is good but the 
one God, and he in whom God operates through the Son ; there is 
none good beside him who is the only Good ! 

Then, from this life of the power of Christ in believers, there 
follows the fulfilment of their prayer, which proceeds from the im- 
pulse of this very power (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ). (Comp. the remarks 
on xiv. 12.) But precisely in this lies the glorifying of the Father 
(ver. 8), that the power of God is displayed through the Son in be- 
lievers. (Comp. the remarks on xiv. 13.) No reference whatever is 
here made to the extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles ; καρπὸς 
πολύς, much fruit, relates, in harmony with ver. 2, to the perfection 
of the inner life, and γενήσεσθε ἐμοὶ μαθηταὶ, ye shall be my disciples, 
simply to the disciples who were present. It is indeed true that 
the manifestation of the glory of the Father in them was one of the 
means whereby the Gospel was extended ; but nothing is said on 
that subject in our passage. 

In the union of vers. 7 and 8, the words ἐν τούτῳ, " in this, which 
connects them, is to be referred to what follows it. True, it cannot 
be said that ἐν τούτῳ in John always refers to the sequel, but, as 
Liicke justly remarks, it must have reference to the principal thought 
that precedes.t But ver. 8, referred to the thought most prominent 
in ver. 7, conveys no appropriate sense. On the other hand, if the 
words ἐν τούτῳ ἵνα φέρητε, in this, that ye may bear, are taken as 
synonymous with ἐν τῷ φέρειν ὑμᾶς, in your bearing, as Kling pro- 
poses (loc, cit, p. 688), ver. 8 stands in close relation to the pre- 
ceding. Then the Aorist ἐδοξάσθη, is to be regarded as a prolepsis, 
which so frequently occurs in these last discourses of Christ, since the 
Lord views what is to come as already accomplishod. Consequently 
the future γενήσεσθε (for γένησθε is merely a correction of the tran- 
scribers), immediately following, does not form any antithesis to 
ἐδοξάσθη, but designates that which already exists, only as continuous 
and permanent. ‘‘ Ye are my disciples, and shall remain so.” 

Ver. 9, 10—The sublime model for the relation of the disciples 
to Christ is the relation of the Son to the Father. The love of the 
Father and the Son is the model of the love of believers, and the lat- 
ter is evinced in the keeping of his commands. (Comp. the Comm. 
xiv. 15.) The expression my love (ἀγάπη μον or ἀγάπη ἐμή), 15 not 
to be understood as meaning either active love alone, or passive love 
alone, but both forms of its manifestation together. In reality, love 
is always a reciprocal action of giving and taking ; hence the 
phraseology : “1 in him, and he in me.” 1, however, ver. 10, the 


* Wahl, in his Clavis, proposes to take ἐν τούτῳ in the sense of ‘‘ for this reason,” but 
Liicke justly contends that this signification is foreign to the usus loquendi of John. 

+ That is, provided it refer to what precedes, it must be a principal not a subordinate 
thought. Here it cannot refer to the principal preceding thought with any tolerable 
sense; it refers therefore to what follows.—[K. 


572 JoHN XY. 11-15. 


continuance of Christ in the Father’s love appears to be made de- 
pendent upon his keeping the Father’s commands, it is evident that 
this mode of expression must be viewed merely under the aspect of 
his human nature, in that the Lord chooses to place himself on a 
perfect parallel with the disciples. 

Ver. 11, 12.—The Saviour now resolves all his commands into 
perfect self-forgetting love. (Comp. the Comm, xiii. 34, 35.) To 
, be able to practise this is happiness itself, and that happiness ad- 
vances as the power to love increases ; hence Jesus could say it was 
the design of these words, that they should be filled with joy, and 
that their joy should become complete (xvii. 13). Now the sense 
in which Christ calls the joy his own, is easily to be perceived. It 
is the same as that in which he just before termed love, and pre- 
viously to that (xiv. 27) peace, his own. First, inasmuch as he 
himself experiences this joy, his own nature being pure self-devoting 
love itself ; secondly, inasmuch as he produces it in the minds of 
his people through the communication of his nature. Accordingly, 
the continuance of this joy is to be taken in the strict sense, 7. 6.) as 
meaning the continuance of believers in connexion with Christ, in 
the element of his spirit. Those interpretations, in which the joy 
is understood as being the joy of Christ in heavenly things, or the 
Lord’s future joy in his approaching glorification; lead astray from 
the depth of thought that characterizes the passage. The connex- 
ion, like the usus loquendi, conducts only to that view of the words 
which we have given above. 

Ver. 13-15.—The Redeemer regards the offering up of life, and 
that for friends, as the highest expression of love. (Comp. the 
remarks on x. 15, ff.) Here it is implied, not only that the Lord 
gave his life for his friends, but also that they should be ready to 
devote their life, in return, for the Lord, whether in external mar- 
_tyrdom (to which ver, 8, ff. refers), or to internal self-denial, as was 
the case with the Evangelist John. (Here again iva appears to be 
used simply ἐκβατικῶς, for if we ascribe to love the positive design to 
offer up life, the interpretation is forced.) 

Some difficulty is occasioned in this passage by the circumstance 
that the Saviour calls the disciples φίλοι, friends, whereas a little 
before he called them δοῦλοι, servants (xii. 16), and in the sequel 
(ver. 20) he again applies to them the same designation. But it is 
plainly to be seen from our passage that Jesus terms the disciples 
friends only in a conditional relation, viz., ‘‘7f ye do whatever I 
command you” (ἐ ἃ ν ποιῆτε ὅσα ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαι ὑμῖν). Hence friend- 
ship with the Redeemer is determined by the degree οἵ ad- 
vancement in practically active love.* As the criterion of the 


* The manner in which some attempt to solve this apparent contradiction, viz., by 
taking ov«ére in the sense “not exactly,” and λέγει as a preterite, is grammatically un- 


JoHN XV. 16. 573 


relative friendship that Christ devotes to his people, he mentions 
the free communication of what the Father has said to him. Here 
it appears as though there were a contradiction to xvi. 12; for in 
the latter passage it is said : ἔτι πολλὰ ἔχω λέγειν ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ δύνασθε 
βαστάζειν ἄρτι, I have yet many things, etc. But the passages are 
reconciled if we only bear in mind that, in the words under our con- 
sideration, the Lord does not allude to all that he received from the 
Father for himself, but only to what he received for communication 
to the disciples. Then the sense is this: “1 have been enabled to 
impart unto you, according to the truth and purity of your hearts, 
all that was given to me by the Father for you.” This involves no 
denial of the fact that more yet remained, which could not be com- 
municated to them. 

Ver. 16.—Meanwhile, to prevent any misunderstanding at the 
mention of friendship, the Redeemer proceeds to say that this is 
not a human friendship, in which case there is a complete reciprocity 
between the friends, but it is one in which he, the Lord, alone deter- 
mines and chooses. (Comp. ver. 19, where the meaning of ἐκλέγειν 
is defined by the appended ἐμ τοῦ κόσμου.) An interesting parallel 
to this thought is formed by 1 John iv. 10, “not that we loved 
God, but that he loved us.” From this relation the Saviour deduces 
the conclusion that everything in them is Ais work, Here, however, 
the similitude of the vine undergoes a modification, for the several 
disciples appear as fruit-bearing trees, and Christ as the vine-dresser 
(dureAovpyé¢)—whilst, before this, where the idea of fellowship pre- 
dominates, he calls himself the vine. (Τιθέναι is here employed —= 
piv for φυτεύειν, and ὑπάγειν = 5¢4 as denoting continuous activity. 
The reference of this expression to the official work of the Apostles, 
is altogether incorrect ; for even if this be included in the meaning, 
it is the word fruit (καρπός) that involves it, and not ‘ go” (ὑπάγειν), 
otherwise literal and figurative language would be mixed together. 

In ver. 2, 8, the subject of the discourse was simply much fruit ; 
an entirely new thought is now presented in the clause καὶ ὁ καρπὸς 
ὑμῶν μένῃ, and that your fruit remain. This evidently conveys the 
idea of the imperishableness of the fruits, which participate the 
peculiarity of the element whence they proceed. Hence it is clear 
that fruit does not denote individual, isolated actions, as such—for 
to them, as temporary phenomena, imperishableness cannot be as- 
cribed—but to actions in living connexion with the principle from 
which they proceed. In this connexion the character of the prin- 
ciple may be ascribed to the actions themselves, because they are 
incessantly reproduced from it as their cause. (Comp. Rev. xiv. 13, 


tenable, and gives an unsuitable meaning. Christ cannot intend to say, “1 called you 
not exactly servants,” 1. ¢., I called you servants only in a figurative sense; for the rela 
tion of dependence on the part of the disciples to Jesus was perfectly real. 


δ14 Joun XV. 17-19 


where the same thought is implied in the expression : “ Their works 
do follow them.”) 

We now come to a second iva, associated with the subject of 
prayer in the name of the Lord, which has already been considered 
in our remarks on xiv. 13. It is a question whether this is co-ordi- 
nate with the first ἵνα, It may be thought that the difference in 
the idea is not important, whether the question be answered affirm- 
. atively or negatively ; but to me the difference appears of sufficient 
moment to speak decidedly against the co-ordinate interpretation. 
For, in that case, the second ἵνα also would be dependent upon 
ἔθηκα, and the sense then arising would be this: ‘I have planted 
you that ye may pray in my name.” Now, to regard prayer as the 
ultimate purpose of the Divine calling (and planting) involves some- 
thing altogether inconsistent. On the other hand, the language 
assumes a very appropriate form, if the second ἵνα be taken as 
dependent upon the permanence of the fruit ; in this case, the devel- 
opment of the Christian life is contrasted with that of the Old Tes- 
tament, wnich consisted rather in isolated works, and the sense of the 
passage is as follows: ‘‘ Ye should bring forth fruit, and that per- 
manent fruit, so that ye may enter into that internal relation to God 
from which prayer in the name of the Lord proceeds.” 

Ver. 17-19.—In passing to the persecutions of the world which 
awaited the disciples, the Redeemer once again mentions that bro- 
therly love which is to the believer, as it were, a compensation for 
all the trouble prepared for him by the sinful world. Tholuck here 
finds a difficulty in the expression ταῦτα ; he says it must stand for 
τοῦτο, as only one command is spokenof. Accordingly, he construes 
ver. 17 thus: “ this one thing I command you, namely, that ye love 
one another.” But this view rests upon the erroneous assumption, 
already noticed in our remarks on ver. 8, that John always refers 
the demonstrative word to what follows, That this is not the case 
is clearly shewn ver. 11, where ταῦτα surely cannot mean the per- 
manence of the χαρά, but must relate to what precedes, as is in- 
dicated by the perfect λελάληκα. (Just so xvi. 16.) In like manner 
also here, ταῦτα, these things, has reference to what comes before, 
and ἕνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, that ye may love one another, expresses 
the ultimate design of all commands of the Lord, love being the 
sum (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις) of all commands (Rom. xiii. 9).* The bitterest 
part of the world’s persecutions to the children of God is not the 
suffering which they occasion, but the hatred they manifest. As 
εἰρηνοποιοί, peacemakers (Matth. v. 9), not only do they abhor 
hatred in themselves, but they are grieved to see it in others ; they 


* The whole of our Evangelist’s first Epistle is, as it were, a commentary on this 
thought, that true brotherly love involves the right love of God, because love is in its 
nature one, and with it all is given to man. 


JoHN XY. 20, 21. 575 


strive to quench it in the hearts of their brethren, and failure in 
this endeavour causes them special distress ; they fear lest the guilt 
should rest upon them. Under these circumstances, however, con- 
solation is derived from the thought (ver. 18) that the ardour of the 
Lord’s love itself could not subdue this hatred ; it rose even against 
him ; nay, the purer the glow of his love, the more furiously it 
raged. The key to this phenomenon is found in ver. 19. Diverse 
principles encounter each other in the elect and in the world. In 
the former, the heavenly nature is manifested ; the latter allows 
the predominance of sin. Hence between these two there cannot 
but be a stern opposition ; the friendship of the world is enmity to- 
ward God (ἔχθρα τοῦ Θεοῦ), and consequently the friendship of God 
(φιλία τοῦ Θεοῦ, ver. 14) is hatred of the world. (Comp. James iv. 
4.) The light of Truth which radiates from the children of God, 
convicts of sin (ἐλέγχει τὴν ἁμαρτίαν) (xvi. 8); he who yields to the 
reproof passes into a state of penitence, and thus learns to hate his 
own sinful nature; but he who withstands the accusations of the 
Spirit, sets himself, with a mind full of hatred, against the trouble- 
some Monitor.* 

Ver. 20, 21.—To make this thought still plainer, the Redeemer 
refers to what he had said before. (Comp. xii. 16.) It follows 
from the relation cf the master and the servant that the latter 
is not spared from what befals the former. The proverb is ap- 
plied here in no other sense than in xiii. 16. For, xiii. 14, 15, the 
subject of discourse was that participation of the disciples in the 
self-humiliating love of Christ, which includes all his sufferings ; 
and ver. 20, the participation of his glory is placed in contrast with 
it. So also is it here: the antithesis is here marked by διώκειν, per- 
secute, and λόγον τηρεῖν, keep the word. Liicke, indeed, would under- 
stand the words “‘ keep my word,” etc. (λόγον pov ἐτήρησαν, κ. τ. 2.), 
as having a tinge of irony, so that the idea to be supplied would be : 
“but they have not kept it, and therefore neither will they keep 
your word.” Certainly the sequel appears to favour this interpre- 
tation, for the Lord discourses merely of persecution; yet the 
thought stands opposed to the view, since then the protasis (hypo- 
thetical clause) of the first proposition must be apprehended differ- 
ently from the second,} which is not admissible. Hence Liicke, in 
the second edition, has abandoned this view. For on the one hand, 
the world is the hostile principle against the Church, but, on the 
other, the Church is continuously increased and completed from the 
world. The world is not the Satanic element, 7. 6. it is not itself 
utterly opposed to what is Divine, but only receives many Satanic 


* Respecting the relation of ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου and ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἶναι, comp. the Comm 
on John xvii. 13, 15. 
+ That is, the one ironically and the other not so.—[TR. 


576 JOHN XV. 22-25, 


influences, while it also contains germs kindred to God, which re- 
ceive the word of truth. Now it is hardly to be conceived that the 
Saviour, in his discourse, would make no allusion to the result of the 
preaching of the Gospel ; and if we interpret “keeping the word” 
without the supposition of irony, this very point appears promi- 
ently in view. For then the sense is as follows: “As they have 
persecuted me, so will they persecute you also ; but as many kept 
my word, so those will be found who will receive your words.” 
Since, however, the reference to persecutions is the main subject 
here, nothing further is communicated respecting the result that 
would follow the preaching of the disciples. ‘The secret reason for 
persecuting believers is alleged to be repugnance to the name of 
Jesus. Here again certainly name (comp. the Comm, xiv. 13) is 
the nature itself with all its properties, and its entire peculiarity ; 
merely the external word, the name, awakens the series of ideas 
connected with the nature of Jesus, and his peculiar attributes. 
Hence the world is opposed even to the confession of the holy name 
of Jesus itself ; it loves (as we have already hinted in the remarks 
on Matth. x. 22) ἃ certain degree of natural virtue, it approves a 
certain reference of the same to the Deity under the general desig- 
nations, “‘ Providence, Heaven, the Good God;” but the name of 
Christ, which is extolled in eternity, it carefully avoids. And yet, 
he who has not and knows not Jesus neither has nor knows God ! 
(Comp. the Comm, on 1 John ii, 23). ᾿ 

Ver. 22-25,—The oneness of God and Christ, who is the pure 
and perfect Revealer of the Father, is now further set forth in the 
following words of *the Lord. As love to Christ is the love of God, 
so hatred to Christ is hatred to Deity itself. In receiving this prin- 
ciple of hate, man, so to speak, opens the gates of his heart to the 
influences of hell (Gen. iv. 7), and thus he is on the way to be 
changed from a natural man to a devilish, a son of perdition 
(vide τῆς ἀπωλείας.) (Comp. the observations on xvii. 12.) Just in 
like manner, the influence of Christ converts the natural man into 
the man of God (ἄνθρωπος Θεοῦ). (2 Tim. ii. 17.) 

The statement, that the revelation of Christ to men increases 
their culpability (comp. xvi. 9), has already been noticed, ix. 39, ff. 
Tere the Lord only brings it to a climax, by associating with ἐλάλησα, 
spoke (ver. 22), ἐποίησα, did (ver. 24.) That which his heart-affect- 
ing words did not produce ought to have been effected py his mira- 
cles. (Comp. the Comm. xiv. 10, 11.) Then, to explain this 
phenomenon of unbelief in spite of all the remedies applied, the 
Redeemer again alludes to the prophecies of Scripture in which Di- 
vine necessity is expressed, although without annulling human free- 
dom. (Αλλά scil. τοῦτο yéyove——The words quoted occur Ps. lxix. 
4, The same words are to be found also Ps. xxxv. 19. Both Psalms 


JoHN XV. 26, 27; XVI. 1-7. OTT 


describe the sufferings of the Messiah under the type of David’s.— 
Awpedy answers to the Heb, 52h “ without reason.”) 

Ver. 26, 27.—The mention of suffering, however, is accompanied 
by that of the victory which the promised power of the Holy Spirit 
secures, This convinces the world, not only of its own sin, but of 
the righteousness and perfection of Christ. (Comp. the Comm. xvi. 
10, 11.) If the disciples are set up as special witnesses (ver. 27) to 
the Lord, it is done here only in so far as they, the constant ob- 
servers of Christ, had opportunities to watch the slightest movements 
of his inward nature, and. yet were unable to accuse him of a 
single sin. (Hence ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς is to be taken as equal to ἐξ ἀρχῆς 
[xvi. 4] viz., from the commencement of Christ’s ministry.) 

In reference to the expressions Comforter, Spirit of truth (παρά-. 
KAntoc, πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας), we have already said what is needful in 
the exposition of xiv. 16. But in this passage two things remain 
to be noticed. rst, the expression “I will send,” ete. (comp. also. 
xvi. 7) is peculiar, since in iv. 16, 26, the Father is spoken of as he 
who sends the Spirit. However, the words are to be explained ac- 
cording to xvi. 15, where it is said: ‘all that the Father hath is mine” 
(πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ, ἐμά ἐστι). From this language it follows that 
every act of the Father may be ascribed also to the Son, the Fa- 
ther working only through the Son. But according to this, it is. 
evident that the mode of expression adopted by the Greek Church 
is erroneous, which denies the procession of the Spirit from the Son.. 
Secondly, this is the only place in which the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι, 
which has become a symbolic term, is applied to the Holy Spirit. 
The word is very expressive ; the idea which it conveys is founded 
upon the metaphor of a stream that issues from the throne of God, 
under which figure the communication of the Spirit is frequently 
represented. (Comp. Rev. xxii. 1 with Ezek. xlvii. 1, where the 
LXX. have the very term ἐκπορεύεσθαι for xx>.) The remark of De 
Wette on the passage results from an incorrect view of the relation 
between the Trinity, and is quite calculated to mislead. He thinks 
that παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, proceedeth from the Father, relates, 
not to the nature, but to the appearance of the Holy Spirit in his 
Christian ministry. The words πέμψω παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, 1 will send 
from the Father, rather refer to this; but in the other clause (τὸ: 
πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται), the precise thing 
expressed is the eternal essential relation of the Spirit to the Father. 

Chap. xvi. 1-7.—Meanwhile the Redeemer considered the ad- 
monition respecting the coming conflict of great importance to the 
life of faith in the disciples, and therefore he returned to it once 
again, and expressly remarks that he has directed their attention td 
it in order that, when it arrives, they may not err in their faith. 
(Comp. xiv. 29.) Hence also he enters the more minutely into par- 

Vou. IL.—37 


578 Joun XVI, 1-7, 


tisular points, warning them of exclusion from the theocratic sys- 
tem of the Old Testament (comp. ix. 22), and even speaking of 
death, which awaited many of*them. (Comp. Matth. xxiv. 9.) 
Men in their blindness will even think to serve God by slaying be- 
lievers, as if they were God’s enemies. (Λατρεία, service == n7‘33, 
may also signify sacrifice, as a main part of the service of God 
under the old covenant. The Rabbins designated the murder of the 
ungodly a sacrifice pleasing to God. Comp. Liicke and Tholuck on 
the passage.) 

A difficulty is presented by the clause (ver, 4) ταῦτα δὲ ὑμῖν ἐξ 
ἀρχῆς οὐκ εἶπον; and these things I said not to you from the begin- 
ning. These words appear to contradict several passages in the 
synoptical Evangelists (comp. Matth. v. 10, x. 16, ff, 22, ff), 
where the Redeemer at an earlier period speaks of persecutions. 
But the nature of the case involved reasons why the Lord should 
not at the very commencement of his ministry inform the disciples 
of the perils that threatened them. Hence, even although some 
hints on the subject may have occurred in earlier discourses, yet it 
is probable, as we have already remarked, that the synoptical Evan- 
gelists transferred the detailed discourses respecting the approach- 
ing persecutions from later discourses into the earlier, (In refer- 
ence to this point comp. the Comm. on Matth. x. 21.) 

There is some obscurity. also in ver. 5. The greater number of 
expositors, however, in the interpretation of the passage, think that 
Christ intended, by the remark, οὐδεὶς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐρωτᾶ με" ποῦ ὑπάγεις ; 
none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou ? to arouse the energies 
of the disciples, who had sunk into profound sadness. In that case 
the difficulty involved in the circumstance, that this question had 
already been asked (by Peter xiii. 36, and by Thomas xiv. 5), is re- 
lieved if we say: the Redeemer felt that the disciples had not yet 
thus rightly apprehended his departure, and therefore he wished to 
induce a further discussion on the subject. This view of the pas- 
sage is satisfactory, so far as essential points are concerned, for the 
question of the disciples, ver. 17, shews that their notions respect- 
ing what was at hand were in fact still obscure. Only, this inter- 
pretation being adopted, we must, with Kuinoel, connect the first 
words of the verse with what precedes, and make a pause after 
πέμψαντά με, the discourse being resumed with the question καὶ 
οὐδείς k. τ. A. Then the connexion is as follows: ‘So long as I was 
with you, I said nothing to you respecting the persecutions that 
threatened you ; but now I go to the Father, and therefore I could 
no longer be silent on the subject.” After a pause, during which 
Jesus looks upon the disciples who stand around him in sorrow, he 
continues: ‘and no one of you asks whither I go, but, because I 
have spoken thus to you, is your heart filled with sorrow?” After 


JoHN XVI. 8-11. 579 


which he beautifully proceeds (ver.) to enlarge upon the fact that, 
although his departure was indeed painful for them, it would be- 
come a source of blessing to them, (Respecting the connexion be- 
tween the departure coincident with the glorification of the Son, 
and the mission of the Holy Spirit, compare the particulars in the 
exposition of John vii. 839.—Again, ver. 7, in the words συμφέρει ὑμῖν 
iva ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω, iva cannot be taken τελικῶς without violence.) 

Ver. 8-11.—The following passage is one of the most pregnant 
with thought occurring in the profound discourses of Christ. With 
a few grand strokes he depicts all and every part of the ministry of 
the Divine Spirit in the world—his operation on individuals as well 
as on the mass, upon unbelievers as well as upon believers. The 
peculiarity in the ministry of this Spirit (who is again viewed not 
as present, but only as coming, comp. the remarks on John vii. 39), 
is marked by the one expression ἐλέγχειν, in which, as Tholuck justly 
observes, the two significations of conviction and reproof penetrate 
each other. Now there are three objects to which the ἐλέγχειν of 
the Spirit has reference—dyapria, sin, δικαιοσύνη, righteousness, and 
κρίσις, udgment—and in each case the Redeemer adds the ground 
upon which that reference is made. Jn the jirst place, the Spirit 
discovers sim, not in its external character in respect to which the 
Law awakens the knowledge of sin (Rom. iii. 26), but in its deep 
internal root. Now this is nothing else than unbelief, which may be 
called the mother of all sinful actions ; but unbelief itself, in its 
most glaring form, is unbelief in the Christ who has appeared. The 
incapacity to recognize the purest manifestations of the Deity pre- 
supposes entire blindness. Further, as the Spirit unveils the nega- 
tive side, so, ἐγ the second place, he discloses the positive, viz., righte- 
ousness. If the connexion had been simply kept in view, there would 
not have been so much difficulty found, in this second case, as has 
been experienced. Jor nothing is more natural than that the in- 
sight into sin should be succeeded by a view of that condition in 
which sin is removed, 7. 6. righteousness. However, it is not at once 
seen what is the relation between this and the words that follow: 
because I go to the Father and ye see me no more (ὅτι πρὸς τὸν 
πατέρα μου ὑπάγω, Kat οὐκέτι θεωρεῖτέ με). Were it merely the going 
to the Father that is spoken of, this might be regarded as a proof 
that righteousness was fulfilled in Christ ; but this view being taken, 
no meaning is attached to “ye see me no more.” Hence we must 
regard ὑπάγειν, go, as expressing visible removal, and this (corporeal 
absence) combined with his invisible all-pervading influence. Then 
arises the following sense, which is perfectly suited to the connex- 
ion: ‘The Spirit convinces both of sin and of righteousness, for he 
shews how the Redeemer, although corporeally invisible, yet invisi- 
biy operates and perfects the inward life.” This interpretation— 


580 Joun XVI. 12, 13. 


certainly the only right one—besides being decidedly supported by 
the most modern expositors, Liicke and Tholuck, was also adopted 
by Bengel, Beza, Theophylact, and Chrysostom, 

Other hypotheses—in which the righteousness of the Apostles, 
of the world, or of God, are respectively regarded as referred to in 
this passage—being opposed partly by the whole connexion and 
partly by the appended clause (ὅτε πρὸς τὸν πατέρα κ. τ. 2.), need no 
refutation. But the opinion propounded by the Reformers (Luther, 
Melancthon, Calvin), and subsequently espoused by Lampe and 
Storr, that here δικαιοσύνη is to be understood as meaning “ justifi- 
cation before God,” requires a closer consideration. The supporters 
of this view take the appended clause in the following manner : 
“‘the Spirit convinces also of the justification necessary for sinful 
men, since, after my atoning death, I go to the Father and shall 
work for you invisibly.” But every one feels that, if this interpre- 
tation is to be looked upon as tenable, the death of.Christ must ne- 
cessarily have been the express subject of discourse in the clause 
just mentioned ; whereas the phrase “‘ go to the Father” only implies 
a distant hint at his death, in so far as that must be regarded as 
preliminary to his exaltation. Moreover, no signification whatever 
can be gained for the words ‘‘ and ye see me no more,” unless they 
are referred to the invisible operations of grace ; these operations, 
however, relate to sanctification, not to justification, and hence are 
not compatible with this interpretation, And further, δικαιοσύνη 
never means justification, either in the language of John, or even in 
that of Paul. The very profound and true idea contained in the 
Lutheran doctrine of justification is expressed by the phrase 40 y é- 
ζεσθαι εἰς δικαιοσύνην, impute for righteousness ;---δικαιοσύνη itselt 
alone never has that signification. (For the proof of this assertion, 
as well as for the entire development of the usus loquendi of δίναιος 
and its composites, the Commentary on Rom. iii. 21 may be con- 
sulted.) Finally, the last object in which the ἐλέγχειν of the 
Spirit is manifested is judgment, separation (κρίσις). As the ele- 
ment to be separated, the Prince of the world (ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου) is 
named ; the Redeemer views him, with his influence and his king- 
dom, as already judged, for here (as Luke x. 18) he looks upon his 
own work as already finished. (Comp. also the remarks on John xii, 
31.) However, the judgment respecting the world of evil does not 
mean merely the future closing scene of the world’s development ; 
it goes on invisibly in the hearts (iii. 18), both of believers (who, 
judging themselves, separate evil from themselves (1 Cor. xi. 31), 
and of unbelievers, who, fleeing from the light, withdraw themselves 
from its benignant influence. 

Ver, 12, 13—This communication is now followed by further in- 
struction respecting the nature of the Spirit. As he in a peculiar 


Joun XVI. 14, 15. 581 


manner awakens the entire emotional life of the soul (which was the 
subject of discourse in the preceding verses), so also the powers of 
knowledge. The Lord, feeling the weakness of the disciples, and 
the scanty development of their consciousness, which did not per- 
mit them to comprehend more, consoles himself with the certainty 
that the Spirit of Truth will lead them into the full truth. It has 
already been observed, in the remarks on John xiv. 26, that we are 
not to understand, by the expression πάντα, all things (1 John ii. 27) 
or πᾶσα ἀλήθεια, all truth, every isolated particular, but simply the 
complete development of the truth, the germ of which is imparted 
with the principle itself. Hence the impropriety of abusing this 
passage—as all visionaries have done since the time of the Montanists 
—by taking it as a guarantee for expecting from the ministry of the 
Spirit, doctrines altogether different, and standing in no connexion 
with the circle of evangelical truths. If such influences were to be 
expected, the Lord could not have said a little while before, ‘‘ I have 
made known to you all things” (John xv. 15). The revelations of 
Christ contain no such singular and extraordinary facts, as the car- 
nal man wishes, but only simple, infinite, eternal truths. These 
truths, however, which he proclaimed and they received, were like 
germinating grains of seed, whose full development was hidden from 
their own eyes ; they had the truth, but without themselves know- 
ing how great and pregnant with results was the treasure they car- 
ried within them. The Redeemer, therefore, in this affecting hour of 
separation, entrusts the hearts of his people to that Holy Spirit, who 
will assuredly accomplish the perfection of the Church, in order 
that he may gradually lead them to the full consciousness of what 
they had received—Liicke proposes to supply after ὅσα ὧν ἀκούσῃ 
(ver. 13) the words ἐκ τοῦ πατρός. Kling justly opposes this (loc. cit. 
p. 690), for ver. 14 the ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνει shews that John admits a 
relation between Jesus and the Spirit similar to that which exists 
between the Father and the Son. 

Ver. 14, 15.—There now follows, as a conclusion to this series of 
thoughts, a hint respecting the relation of the Spirit to the Son and 
to the Father, as well as his communications concerning the future. 
This Holy Spirit, who, so to speak, contains in himself all the germs 
of their advancing culture, opens to him who receives him a view 
into the future. This particular operation of the Spirit appears 
concentrated in the Evangelist John ; whilst the Spirit illuminated 
the rest rather as to the present, for the sake of their immediate 
practical work, he disclosed the future to John the Seer more fully 
than to the others, and thus rendered him the Prophet of the New 
Testament. All communications of the Spirit, however, bear that 
mark of <mmediateness which also distinguished the words of the 
Redeemer. He speaks (internally in the souls of believers) what he 


582 JoHn XVI. 16-20. 


sees and hears. “Accordingly he does not work in isolation and ar- 
bitrarily (ἀφ᾽ éav70d), but in intimate, vital fellowship with the Son, 
as the Son again stands in the same relation to the Father. (Comp. 
viii. 28, 38.) This passage is of special importance as regards the 
right apprehension of the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity (comp. 
the Comm. Matth. xxviii. 19) since it illustrates the living znter- 
existence of Father, Son, and Spirit, and alike opposes Arian sub- 
ordination, and a blind and awkward arrangement of the persons of 
the Trinity beside one another, even although it may be couched in 
orthodox formule. The latter theory has given rise to that inter- 
pretation which regards the words ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήψεται, he shall take 
of mine (ver. 14) as having reference to the doctrine of Christ, as if 
‘the sense were: “the Spirit will further explain my doctrine.” But 
then it follows that in ver. 15 also, that which the Father has must 
be called the doctrine of the Father. The only correct view of the 
words is that, according to which, in these relations of Father, 
Son, and Spirit, no distinction whatever is made between knowledge 
and essence ; the Divine essence itself is knowledge, and since the 
Son receives knowledge from the Father, he receives also essence, 
and so again the Spirit in like manner. At the same time it is 
equally clear from this passage, that, as we have already remarked, 
the Greek Church, in denying the procession of the Spirit from the 
Son, does not employ an adequate doctrinal limitation. And, as 
the Father glorifies the Son and the Son again the Father (xii, 31), 
so the Holy Spirit also glorifies the Son, viz., not in himself, but in 
the whole community of believers, the Church, wherein the life of 
Christ is manifested (1 Cor. xii. 12), which the Spirit brings to per- 
fection. (Comp. the Comm, on John xvii. 1, 4, 5.) 

Ver. 16-20.—Here, however, Jesus intimates that, before this 
Spirit could exercise his beatifying ministry, a painful separation 
was necessary, which however would again soon be over. These 
words were so obscure to the Apostles that they declared themselves 
unable to comprehend them, a circumstance from which it may be 
seen how little they had penetrated into the meaning of the dis- 
course. The Lord therefore gave them the needful assistance, and 
in the first place, ver. 20, explained his language : μικρὸν καὶ ob θεω- 
ρεῖτέ με, a little time, etc. He speaks of their sorrow and the joy of 
the world, and thus places the reference to his approaching death 
beyond doubt. (Μικρόν scilicet διάστημα χρόνου — vyxa, Hos. i. 4) 
The second part, καὶ πάλιν μικρὸν καὶ ὄψεσθέ με, and again a little 
time, etc., isnot so clear. But allinterpreters of the better class have 
now decided that a primary reference to the corporeal resurrection 
is not to be supposed, as is indicated also by the words ‘“ because I 
go to the Father,” with which such a reference would not be consis- 
tent ; on the contrary, here, as in John xiv. 19, the seeing again 


JoHN XVI. 21-28. 583 


(like the “coming,” xiv. 3) is to be understood as relating to the in- 
ternal spiritual work of Christ. The corporeal resurrection of 
Christ certainly was the beginning of that joy, never to be lost, which 
springs (ver. 22) from the communication of the Spirit by the Lord. 
But John prefers, for the sake of those readers whom he had more 
immediately in view, always to give the chief and most prominent 
place to that which is internal ; and this is to be sought in that 
communication of the Spirit whereby the disciples were filled with 
unceasing joy. The following verses, which are, as it were, a com- 
mentary on the second part of ver. 16, prove beyond dispute that 
the Evangelist here also referred to the seeing of Christ in his inter- 
nal and spiritual ministry. 

Ver, 21-23.—Under a different figure from that employed xii. 
24, the Saviour further describes the approaching time of suffering, 
and the joy that would result from it ; the metaphor is that of birth, 
during which the woman suffers pain, but afterwards experiences 
great delight over the infant born. Here, however, arises the ques- 
tion—how is this comparison to be viewed ? It might be thought 
that the suffering humanity of Christ is meant by the labouring 
mother, and that as risen and glorified, he is the new-born man ; 
but the Redeemer (ver. 22) assigns the suffering to the disciples ; 
and how then is the new-born man related to them ? The shortest 
method is here again to say that we are not to lay stress upon the 
individual features of the comparison, but that the meaning of the 
simile is merely this :—great sorrow is followed by joy. However, 
I cannot agree with this view on the one hand, because in that case 
Christ would only have hinted the parallel, and would not have 
carried it out to such an extent, and, on the other, because the 
general rules of interpretation sanction the most strict use of the 
various features in comparisons, so far as is possible without vio- 
lence. Accordingly, the proper meaning of the figure seems to be, 
that the death of Jesus Christ was, as it were, a painful act of 
travail on®the part of all humanity, in which act the perfect man 
was born to the world ; this birth of the new man forming the 
source of eternal joy for all, since by him and by his power the reno- 
vation of the whole is made possible.* Thus the death of Christ 
becomes a fact in the history of the world, which everything before 

* Tholuck (on the passage, in the fifth edition) hesitates to acknowledge this view; he 
thinks it cannot be adopted unless the representation, given by St. Martin, of the new 
humanity as homme universel, were scriptural. But there is no occasion whatever to 
resort to such opinions as this, That Christ is the second Adam—that in him all are 
made alive, asin Adam all are dead—surely is the doctrine of Scripture; and this is quite 
sufficient to justify our interpretation of the passage before us. (Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 22, 45, 
ff.) [Thoiuck’s hesitation seems rational. The point of comparison seems simply that 
the present distress of the disciples will be succeeded by a joy springing out of the very 


cause of that distress, viz., their sad abandonment by their Master, just as the pains of 
travail are forg»tten in joy over the new-born child. ]—K. 


584 JoHn XVI, 23-28. 


it was intended to usher in, and from which the entire development 
of succeeding ages is matured. This state of perfect joy and com- 
plete satisfaction is indicated by the words “ye shall ask of me_ 
nothing” (ἐμὲ οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε οὐδέν). That this language does not 
properly describe the time from the resurrection of Christ to the as- 
cension, is shewn by Acts i. 7 ; hence ver. 16 can only relate to that 
spiritual presence of Christ in the soul whereby every desire of the 
mind is actually satisfied, and all knowledge is supplied. Accord- 
ingly, here John’s entire mode of conception is purely internal, and 
forms a remarkable contrast to the external objective characters of 
the synoptical Evangelists, although at the same time it involves 
no contradiction; for it belongs to the peculiarities of the Gospel 
‘ that it unites the widest extremes, and satisfies on the one hand 
the soul’s cravings for the spiritual, and on the other its no less 
substantial demand for that spiritual in outward, objective mani- 
festation.* 

Ver, 23, 24.—As the means of attaining this happy satisfaction 
of their desire, the Lord directs the disciples to prayer—prayer in 
his name—which will never fail to be heard. (Comp. the Comm. 
on John xiv. 12.) The striking feature in these verses is the lan- 
guage, “hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name” (ξως dere οὐκ 
ἠτήσατε οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου). But prayer in the name of Christ 
(as also prayer to himself) presupposes his glorification ; before this, 
the human element in Christ must have made the strongest impres- 
sion upon the minds of the disciples ; it was only, so to speak, in 
single, exalted moments that they perceived the Divine majesty of 
the Lord. (Comp. the remarks on Matth. xvi. 16.) 

Ver. 25-28.—The following verses contain a further reference to 
the different position of the disciples toward Christ before and after 
his glorification and return to the Father. The Redeemer distin- 
guishes speaking in parables (ἐν παροιμίαις λαλεῖν) from speaking 
openly (παῤῥησίᾳ λαλεῖν), or announcing concerning the Father (avay- 
γέλλειν περὶ τοῦ πατρός), and promises the latter precisely at the 
time when they would pray in his name. That we are not here to 
understand by παροιμίαι literal parables, is self-evident ; for none of 
such had occurred in the whole of these discourses. But it may be 
said that the entire human language is a parable, as it does not 
admit of adequate expression concerning Divine things. The Lord 
therefore contrasts with the use of this feeble medium of communi- 
cation, the employment of one more internal and more real. By the 
impartation of his Spirit, the Lord teaches the knowledge of the 
nature of God freely and openly (παῤῥησίᾳ), without any fear of a 
misunderstanding. This internal instruction, because it is a real 


* The meaning, it is hoped, is made clear. John’s Gospel supplies the need of the 
spiritual; the synoptical Gospels give the truth more in its objective character.—[K. 


Joun XVI. 29-33. 585 


communication of Divine being and life, carries with it, not only 
prayer in the name of Jesus, but free access to the Father himself. 
The reconciled heart is led by the Son to the Father, and is itself 
made achild of God. (2 Cor. vi. 18.) This condition, however, is 
here viewed ideally : in fact, here below it can only be attained ap- 
proximately, for so long as the old man lives and acts, there is need 
for the intercession of Christ and the daily washing from the contam- 
inations of the world, whereby alone the believer, notwithstanding 
his defects, can enjoy Divine grace in peace. Hence the love of the 
Father is associated with love to the Son and faith in him (ver. 27, 
28) ; because, as the Father draws to the Son, so also the Son alone 
in the Holy Spirit can lead to the Father. 

Ver. 29-32.—The disciples, although they had not in reality 
perfectly comprehended any part of the discourse of Christ, caught 
the meaning of the last words of the Redeemer, and joyfully ex- 
claimed that they now rightly understood him, because he had 
spoken plainly and clearly. Although this affectingly shews the 
simplicity of their faith, yet the exclamation also betrays, in the 
most striking manner, their spiritual infancy; they had no idea 
that they had no¢ understood !_ However, the words of Christ were 
not spoken in vain; the disciples divined the richness of their 
meaning, and preserved them in their hearts, till subsequently the 
Spirit caused these seeds to germinate, and bring forth their abun- 
dant fruits. (Comp. the Comm. on John xiv. 26, τὸ πνεῦμα 0 To p- 
νήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἷπον ὑμῖν.) Jesus feels that, in the present 
state of the minds of his disciples, it is not possible to demonstrate 
to them the opposite of their conjecture, and hence he is satisfied 
with exciting their doubts by reminding them of that approaching 
moment of his arrest, and their dispersion (Matth, xxvi. 31), which 
abundantly demonstrated their weakness. (Certainly it is the more 
correct view to regard ἄρτι πιστεύετε as a question. Others take the 
words as an affirmation in which the Lord admits what they have 
said : “ Ye do indeed believe now, but,” etc., because they did in 
fact believe. But the very thing which the Saviour intended to 
represent was the weakness and imperfection of this faith, and to 
this object the question is far better adapted. That which, accord- 
ing to xiii, 38, the Lord said to Peter alone, he here declares to all 
the disciples.) The Saviour, however, comforting himself in the 
anticipation of his approaching hour of suffering, adds: καὶ οὐκ εἰμὶ 
μόνος, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, but I am not alone, etc. (Comp. viii. 
29.) Respecting the reconciliation of this with the lamentation 
into which the Redeemer broke forth on the cross, comp. the partic~ 
ulars at Matth. xxvii. 40, 

Ver, 33,--The Redeemer now, in the concluding verse, adds a 
word of comfort for the disciples, who probably stood deeply dejected 


586 Joun XVII. 1, 2. 


at his last admonition. He reminds them that the purpose of all 
his discourses is to lead them to peace in him. He did not wish to 
chide them, but aimed to impart consolation to them in their weak- 
ness. Peace in him (εἰρήνη ἐν ἐμοί), is here contrasted with affliction 
in the world (θλίψις ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ); although the disciples were feeble 
in the life of faith, yet, with their love and their desire, they be- 
longed to the higher world. The life of the world was strange and 
burdensome to them. It might, indeed, for a moment*overcome 
them through the power of its Prince (ver. 82), but it could not 
draw them into it. Their hearts were always where their treasure 
was, that is in Christ, in his happy spiritual fellowship, in essential 
unity with him. To secure this to them for ever, to withdraw them 
from all overpowering influence of the world, was the great design 
of Christ ; and he invites them, in contemplating the sure success 
of his work, to take courage, and maintain the conviction that in 
him and through him, they themselves also would eventually con- 
quer the world. 

And now (chap. xvii.) the Redeemer breathes out all the wishes 
of his heart for his own, in a sublime prayer, usually called the in- 
tercessory prayer, because in this the Lord prays for the disciples, 
and the whole of his future church that should result from their 
ministry. The peculiarity of John’s Gospel is expressed in this 
prayer, in a kind of concentrated form. The thoughts contained in 
it are so natural and simple that they seem to be free from all diffi- 
culty ; and yet, with all their perspicuity, they are so unfathomably 
profound, that every attempt to exhaust them isin vain. “ Plain 
and artless,” says Luther, ‘‘as it sounds, it is so deep, rich, and 
wide, that no one can find its bottom or extent.’ Hence Spener 
has never ventured to preach on this prayer of Christ, humbly con- 
fessing that “the right understanding of it surpasses the measure 
of faith which the Lord usually imparts to his people during their 
earthly pilgrimage.” And it will be found, perhaps, most fitting 
if we also venture no more than a few remarks on this precious gem 
of the church, and leave it to the Spirit to give every reader a more 
complete and clear disclosure of its glories. The prayer itself falls 
into two parts. In the first (ver. 1-8) the Lord speaks of himself, 
and his relation to the Father, and to men in general. In the second 
part Jesus prays for his own (ver. 9-26); supplicating on their be- 
half, first, that they may be kept in his name (ver. 11-16), then that 
they may be sanctified in the truth as he has sanctified himself for 
them (ver. 17-19), and finally, expanding his view over the whole 
future church, represented by the Apostles as its germ, that all 
believers may form such a unity in love as that which exists be- 
tween the Father and the Son (ver, 20-26). 

Chap. xvii. 1, 2.—The Redeemer begins by referring to the mag- 


Joun XVII. 3. 587 


nitude of the crisis now arrived. The hour which the Father had 
appointed was come—the period of the glorification of the Son, 
which again reciprocally glorified the Father. (Comp. the Comm. 
on John xiii, 31.) The Son prays for this very glorification, although it 
could only be accomplished by the most severe conflict. The glori- 
fication of the Lord, however, was by no means confined to himself 
individually ; on the contrary, humanity* was placed before him as 
the object of his ministry, and his exalted vocation was to bring to 
it eternal life—the communication of which to mankind is the very 
thing in which the glorification of the Father through the Son con- 
sists, (Καθώς is here to be understood as continuing the discourse ; 
“as the,” “just as then.” Comp. Rom. i. 28; 1 Cor. i. 6.) 

Ver. 3.—The following verse shews, in a precise manner, how 
the communication of eternal life is a glorification of the Father, 
this life consisting in the knowledge of God itself. The idea αὕτη 
ἐστὶν ἡ ζωή, this is life, must not be superficialized by the interpreta- 
tion that the knowledge of God is one of the means to the attainment 
of eternal life (as if the words ran: ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος ἔρχεται διὰ τῆς 
γνώσεως τοῦ θεοῦ). On the contrary, as we have often remarked, the 
γινώσκειν, to know, according to the profound and spiritual mode of 
contemplation which characterizes John, is not a scanty, conceptual 
knowledge of God, but an essential possession of his being and na- 
ture,} so that thus the knowledge of God rests upon a real impar- 
tation of himself to believers.{ On this account also it is only the 
knowledge of the true God (θεὸς ἀληθινός), who is himself light and 
life, that can be eternal life. There is here no contrast of the true 
God with idols ; if there were, the term ἀληθής would be employed ; 
idols not only give no life, but produce death. In the ¢rwe religious 
life,§ however, there is a gradation ; the lowest stage existing under 
the legal dispensation, upon which the Deity acted, not by impar- 
tation, but by requirement ; with this the Redeemer contrasts that 
higher stage belonging to the new economy, the peculiarity of 
which consists in the actual communication of Divine life to all 
those in whom the desire has been awakened by means of the law. 

The older expositors employed this passage as an argument for 
the Divine nature of Christ, taking the words τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν 
Θεόν, the only true God (according to 1 John v. 20), as an apposition 


* Tldoa σαρξ = ἡ; πὸ (Luke iii. 6), a designation of all mankind (not merely beliey- 
ers, ver. 9), who, as regards the Divine purpose, are, without exception, contemplated as 
objects of the redeeming work of Christ, although they do not become so in effect. 

+ So also justly Kling on this passage, loc. cit. p. 691. 

Comp. Iren. adver. heer. iv. 20, ζῆσαι ἄνευ ζωῆς οὐχ οἷόν te ἐστί" ἡ δὲ ὕπαρξις τῆς 
ζωῆς ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ περιγίνεται μετοχῆς" μετοχὴ δὲ Θεοῦ ἔστι τὸ γινώσκειν Θεὸν καὶ 
ἀπολαύειν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ. 

§ Here, also, ἀληθινός has its ordinary signification; it denotes the absolute, in oppo» 
sition to the relative. 


588 Joun XVII. 3. 


to “God and him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ.” (Comp. 
Augustine de spir. et lit. c. 22.) In modern times, on the contrary, 
the passage is frequently used to deny the Divine nature of Christ, 
since it is said: ‘‘ God is called the only true God, and consequently 
Christ. cannot be God.” Both extremes are to be avoided. The 
construction of Augustine is decidedly incorrect, as is now univer- 
sally acknowledged ; the verse, therefore, cannot be available as an 
argument. Just as little, however, is it opposed to the doctrine of 
the divinity of Christ. In the first place, as Tholuck has already 
justly observed, the passage is to be interpreted precisely in the 
same manner as all those in which the humanity of Christ alone is 
presented to view. Nothing more can be deduced from this verse 
against the Divine nature of Christ, than from 1 Tim. 11. 5 (εἷς Θεὸς 
καὶ εἷς μεσίτης, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς), or from Titus ἢ. 13 (af 
σωτήρ be separated from Θεός). And, secondly, our passage clearly 
involves, by way of inference, the meaning that the nature of Christ, 
while human, is at the same time also higher than human. It 
would be inconceivable, respecting any other person (for example, 
Abraham, Moses, or Isaiah), that he could be represented as co- 
ordinate with God as the object of that knowledge which is eternal 
life. The juxtaposition of God and Christ, adopted here, can only 
be appropriate on the supposition that Christ himself is of Divine 
nature, and thus, as God, bears life in himself. Every one feels 
that it cannot be said, under any condition: “ this is life eternal, to 
know God and Abraham or Moses.” There is nothing to be known 
in them that could produce eternal life, since they are mere men. 
It is only in so far as the power of God wrought in them, that we 
can speak of knowing God through Abraham or Moses. And it is 
thus that our opponents would literally take the meaning here: 
“this is eternal life, that we know God, through the doctrine of 
Christ.” But neither “ through” nor “the doctrine” stands in the 
text ; the text speaks only of the person of Christ, and represents 
it as co-ordinate with God. If, therefore, it is not well that this 
verse should be employed in positive theology as an argument for 
the divinity of Christ (because it does not contain a direct expres- 
sion of the doctrine, but that doctrine must be deduced by way of 
inference), at the same time a resort to this passage, in opposition 
to the doctrine, is altogether out of place, since an impartial view of 
the words shews that the author of the Gospel, here, as everywhere 
else, does not conceal his idea of the Divine nature of Christ. (Ver. 
3, ἵνα is again used in such a manner that it cannot be taken τελι- 
κῶς, without violence. Comp. the remarks on Matth, xiii. 10, ff.) 
The opinion that Χριστόν is here to be taken as a predicate, which 
Liicke and Meyer have again avowed, is opposed, as Tholuck has 
already justly remarked, by the circumstance, that in that case the 


Joon XVII. 4, δ. 589 


article could not be wanting. It is asserted, finally, in opposition 
to those who maintain a literal report of the discourses of Jesus by 
John, that here certainly the Redeemer himself only said “ me,” 
without pronouncing his name, and that the mention of the name is 
doubtless to be traced to the Evangelist. But Liicke justly refers 
to the solemn style of the prayer which permitted the supplicant to 
name himself. 

Ver. 4, 5—The sense of this verse and its connexion with ver. 
1 are not clear, unless a strict distinction is made between the three 
kinds of Christ’s glorification spoken of by John in different pas- 
sages. (Comp. the Comm. on John xiii, 31, 82, xvi. 14.) In the 
Jirst place, the Evangelist mentions a glorification of Christ in his 
personality, and for this he uses the expression Θεὸς δοξάζει υἱόν, God 
glorifies the Son (xiii. 81). Viewed in another light, however, this 
may be called a glorification of God in the Son (xiii. 31), since it is 
God himself who manifests his glory in the Son. To this refers 
also the phrase “ glorify thy Son” (δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, xvii. 1) which 
here, however, being viewed as real, appears yet to be accomplished, 
whereas xiii. 3], viewed ideally, it appears as completed. Secondly, 
John employs the expression “ glorification of Christ in God” 
(xiii. 82, xvii. 5). This relates to the circumstance of the Son’s re- 
turn to the bosom of the Father, at his elevation into the heavenly 
world of spirit. Jinally, reference is made to a glorification of 
Christ in men by the Holy Spirit (xvi. 14). But, as we remarked 
respecting the first mode of expression, that the (personal) glorifica- 
tion of Christ may likewise be termed a glorification of God in the 
Son, so also this third form denotes the glorification of the Father, 
through the Son in men (xvii. 1). Accordingly the reference in 
verses 4 and 5 is different from that in ver. 1. In the beginning of 
the chapter the Redeemer spoke of his personal glorification, and 
that ministry amongst men which was conditional upon it ; ver, 4 
and 5, however, the Lord founds upon his ministry among men his 
return to the bosom of the Father. 
_ As regards the single points in ver. 4 and 5, the phrase “ on the 
earth” forms an antithesis with the heavenly world. In the latter 
no special glorifying is needed ; but the earth, during the predomi- 
nance of sin, is without glory, and is only re-illumined with Divine 
glory by Christ, this being the great commission (τὸ ἔργον) of God, 
which the Saviour had to fulfil here below, and which he even now 
contemplates in spirit as already completed.* The antithesis of 
ver. 4 and 5 “I have glorified thee on the earth—and now glorify 


* The singular (τὸ ἔργον) here denotes the whole of Christ’s work of redemption, at 
once, external and internal; the plural (τὰ ἔργα), on the contrary, signifies the external 
part of his work in distinction from the ῥήματα, which constitute the internal. (Comp. the 
observations on John xiv. 10, ff.) 


590 JoHN XVII. 6-8. 


thou me” (scil. in heaven, or with thyself), is peculiar. It appears 
as if the Lord here asked the glory of the Father as a compensation 
for the completion of his work. We are not, however, here to sup- 
pose a remunerative reward, so much as an exchange of love. Out 
of true love, the Lord became poor as we; out of free love the Fa- 
ther again raised him above all, and the Redeemer claims this ex- 
altation with perfect confidence, as it is the manner and nature of 
love to do. Hence this glory with the Father, which the Son had 
in his eternal being (John i. 1) (πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι) is not to be 
explained (as has been attempted) as mere existence in the knowl- 
edge and will of God, in which sense an eternal vocation to happi- 
ness is ascribed to all believers. (Ephes.i.4; 2 Timothyi,9.) For, 
granted that the expression ἢ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἷναι, which I 
had before the world was, viewed in a purely grammatical light, 
may be understood otherwise than as meaning an actual possession 
of eternal glory before all created things—yet the principle, that 
every author should be interpreted from himself, renders it neces- 
sary to retain throughout the reference of the words to a real personal 
existence. The procemium of the Gospel alone is a sufficiently strong 
proof that John ascribed to the Son such an existence with the Fa- 
ther ; on this account, here also the words cannot mean anything 
else than that which they literally express. 

Ver. 6—8.—The following verses carry out further the sentiments 
of verses 2 and 4; they give a more precise description of Christ’s 
ministry among men, as a kind of proof that the work committed 
to him by the Father was fulfilled. The manifestation of God’s 
own entity (ὄνομα) to men here designates the sublime ministry of 
Christ ; and they (those who had become believers) received into them- 
selves and kept the word of the Son (full of spirit and life, John vi. 
63) by which he revealed the Father. (Comp. the Comm. on λόγον 
τηρεῖν, John viii. 51.) The result of this reception is still more 
minutely described in verses 7 and 8. The life communicated by 
Christ to the soul produces in it true knowledge and faith (respect- 
ing the γινώσκειν which precedes, comp. the remarks on John vi. 69, 
x. 38; 1 John iv. 16) since it gives to him who receives it the cer- 
tainty that everything in the Redeemer is of Divine origin, nay, 
that he himself (as the Son from the Father) came out from God. 

In this clear connexion only one thing surprises us, viz., that the 
Lord so decidedly restricts the φανέρωσις, manifestation, (ver. 6) to 
those men who had been given to him by the Father out of the world. 
In combination with ver. 9, which expressly excludes prayer for the 
world (in reference to which subject, the interpretation immediately 
following may be compared), this appears to indicate a choice of a 
few out of the general massa perditionis. Still, according to the 
remarks made at an earlier part of our exposition on the giving 


JonHn XVII. 9, 10. 591 
(διδόναι) of John (vi. 87, 44; x. 29), it is already plain that this 


giving (διδόναι) or drawing (ἑλιύειν) is a progressive act ; the church 
of Christ, proceeding from a small beginning, continually extends, till 
the attraction of the Father to the Son has been applied to all. 
Those to whom this did not happen in ὦ certain time are not, on 
that account, rejected ; on the contrary, so far as this circumstance 
merely is concerned, they only stand in an Old Testament posi- 
tion. When, however, the call takes place, and is refused, as in 
the case of Judas (ver, 12), then, and not till then, takes place 
complete perdition. 

Jesus gives utterance to the words (ver. 6) σοὶ ἦσαν καὶ ἐμοὶ 
αὐτοὺς δέδωκας, thine they were, etc., with which the expressions 
verses 9 and 10 are parallel, in order to indicate the mutual relation 
of love between the Father and the Son. All that the Father has 
he gives to the Son (1 Cor. xv. 26, ff.), and the Son receives it only 
that he may, by the Spirit, restore all to the Father. The view of 
De Wette, however, is quite incorrect, when he understands the 
words “ they were thine” as denying that all men before their con- 
version are children of Satan. Jn so far as men are sinful, they 
are all children of Satan, while in so far as the image of God, al- 
though defaced in them, is not absolutely destroyed, they are at 
the same time all God’s. Here the reference is only to the elect in 
particular, but the very fact that it was necessary for them to be , 
taken from the world and given to Christ, shews that they also were 
in the power of the Prince of this world. 

Ver. 9, 10.—Now follows the express prayer of Christ to the 
Father for hisown; that all whom the Father had given him might 
be received from him again by the Father (being led to the Father) 
as his. This one petition becomes divided in the sequel into three 
gradations, which detail the single stages, whereby the leading back 
to the Father is accomplished. The Lord already finds the cer- 
tainty of being heard, in his general relation to the Father: nei- 
ther Father nor Son have anything of their own in separation from 
each other (τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα od ἐστι καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά); the Redeemer him- 
self is glorified in believers, and accordingly in them he leads back 
himself and his own image to the Father. To the positive prayer 
is added the negative: “I pray not for the world” (οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσ- 
μου ἐρωτῶ). That these words are not meant to imply any absolute 
refusal to pray for the world is proved, on the one hand, by the en- 
tire nature of Christ’s work, which consists purely in setting the 
sinful world free from sin ; and, on the other, by the circumstance 
that the only source from which the Church is filled is the world, 
the Church being destined at length to penetrate the whole family 
of man, on which account (as ver. 20 shews) the prayer of the Lord 
must have reference to a world that was yet in alienation from 


“- 


592 JoHn XVII. 11. 


him.* But the prayer of Christ for the world takes quite a different 
form from that forthe Church. The former is to the effect that the 
world may cease to be what it is; the latter, that the Church may 
be perfected in that which it has received into itself. Now, here 
the Jatter only is the object in view, and this express reference of 
the prayer to the Church is intended to be pointed out by the 
phrase οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου ἐρωτῶ, I pray not, etc. 

Ver. 11.—In this verse the Redeemer presents the first principal 
request that his disciples may be preserved from the world. It ex- 
presses the negative part of that which the Lord wished for his own 
(the positive part follows in ver. 17), viz. that the germ of the 
higher life implanted in their hearts, might not be repressed by the 
power of the opposing element of the world. Jesus assigns, as the 
reason for this petition, the fact that he himself, through whom 
they had been protected up to this time, was about to leave them, 
and therefore they needed other protection, that they might not re- 
main helpless (John xiv. 18.) 

The first thing to be remarked here is the name πάτερ dy ce, 
Holy Father, whereas ver. 25, πάτερ δίκαι ε, righteous Father, oc- 
curs. This epithet is intended to point out that power of God 
which defends from the unholy influences of the world, and whereby 
the disciples would be preserved in their conflict. The higher ele- 
ment in which Christ desires his people to be kept, is here called the 
“name of God.” If we compare ver. 14, and such passages as 1 
John ii. 14, iii. 9, it is clear that the Divine name here means the 
same thing as is there expressed by the terms Divine word, seed, 
etc. (λόγος, σπέρμα 7.0.) Here, as before, the name is nothing else 
than the Divine essence itself, which the Redeemer in his Spirit 
communicated to the disciples, the higher light given by him to be- 
lievers, which struggles with the darkness that predominates in the 
world. (The reading ᾧ is at all events preferable to the ordinary 
one—ovc, and to another—é. It has already been received into the 
text by Griesbach and Schulz. The best codices A.B.C.E.H.L.M.S., 
besides many others, have ; the reading οὕς occurs nowhere else 
but in the codex D, and in versions. Semler unnecessarily conjec- 
tured oc.)—As the ultimate and glorious end of preservation in the 
name of God, the wnity of believers is anticipated ; into which 
subject, we shall enter more fully in the exposition of ver. 20, ff. 
One other matter here presses itself upon our attention, viz., the 
inquiry how this prayer of the Lord to the Father, for the preser- 
vation of his people, is related to his declaration: “‘ Jam with you 


* Comp. the excellent remarks on Luther in Walch’s Edition, vol. viii. p. 730, ff, “to 
pray for the world, and not to pray for the world, must both be right and good. Paul 
certainly was of the world when he persecuted and killed Christians. Yet Stephen 
prayed for him. Christ also prays in like manner on the cross. Luke xxiii, 34.” 


JoHN XVII. 12. 593 


(to help you) alway, even unto the end of the world.” (Matth. 
xxviii. 19.) Evidently we must regard this as only a different mode 
of expression for the same thing, as is plainly shewn also by xiv. 18, 
where the Redeemer promises his disciples, as a consolation for 
them in their time of desertion; ‘‘ J will come again,” viz., in the 
Spirit. According to the representation of the Scripture, the Fa- 
ther operates through the Son, and in particular the exercise of that 
power which protects the Church, is commonly ascribed to the lat- 
ter. Hence the prayer to the Father for the preservation of his 
own must be apprehended in that human point of view, which it was 
necessary for the Redeemer to adopt in order that he might be in- 
telligible to his disciples who were present.* 

Ver. 12.—The mention of the preservation of the disciples 
through him led the Lord to speak of the one unhappy individual 
who had been lost—Judas Iscariot. In doing so he intimates that 
the cause of the condition of that disciple is not to be charged to 
him (the Lord) or to others, but is to be sought in a higher neces- 
sity, and in the undoubted faithlessness of the disciple himself. 
(This is implied in the words iva ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ, that the Scrip- 
ture, etc., since the Scripture contains an expression of the will of 
God, which as such is necessary. Concerning the conflict of free- 
dom with necessity in the history of Judas, compare the remarks on 
Matth. xxvii. 8— According to John xiii. 18, there can be no doubt 
that the Redeemer recognized references to the treachery of Judas 
in the Old Testament.) It must be further presumed respecting 
Judas, that the name of God had been made known to him as to 
the other disciples ; for the glory of that manifestation of God 
which he beheld was the very thing that rendered his sinful course 
so criminal ; but, in accordance with his perfidy and corruption, he 
was not kept in the name of God, but was overcome by those temp- 
tations of the world which found an ally in his own heart. Thus, 
as the other disciples, through the faithful preservation of that hea- 
venly blessing imparted to them, were gradually changed from natural 
men to regenerated men of God, so Judas completely sank from the 
level of the natural man (which still contains germs of good) to 
that of the lost children of the Devil. Severe as the sentiment is, 
yet comparing passages such as John viii. 44, we cannot doubt that 
the words imply it. As regards the designation υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, 
son of perdition, it occurs again 2 Thess, 11. 3, in application to An- 
tichrist, the man of sin, of whom Judas was, as it were, a symbol. 
(Comp. John xiii. 27.) The mode of expression is hebraistic, ac- 
cording to the known usus loquendi with 2, by means of which an 
epithet is applied to its subject. Accordingly “son of perdition” 

* The same tuing is conveyed also, ver. 13, by the words ταῦτα λαλῶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ 
i. e. So long as I remain here below and have not returned to God. 


Vout. 11.--88 


594 JouHn XVII. 13-19. 


means “ one who is given over to destruction.” (Isaiah vii. 4, the 
expressions »#2—"75: and πὸ x74 are employed in juxtaposition, 
and are translated by the LXX. τέκνα ἀπωλείας, σπέρμα ἄνομον. The 
ideas of sin and destruction naturally suggest each other, since they 
are to be regarded as necessarily correlative.) 

Ver. 18, 14—After this parenthetic remark (ver. 12), the Re- 
deemer, returning to the prayer itself, observes, in the first place, 
that its design was to complete the joy of his people. This thought 
is parallel with that conveyed above (ver. 11) in the words “that they 
may be one as we” (iva ὦσιν ἔν καθὼς ἡμεῖς), which also, as we have 
already observed, are intended to express the purpose of the peti- 
tion. (Respecting χαρὰ ἐμή, compare the observations on John xv. 
11.) Ver. 14 then furnishes the reasons why they needed such a 
defence ; first, because the Lord had given them his word, ¢. e., had 
made them pillars of that new spiritual community which he had 
come to establish, and hence in them the whole church was pro- 
tected ; secondly, because the world hated them, since they did not 
belong to it. (Compare the Comm. on John 1. 9, vii. 7.) In their 
proper element of life they belong to the heavenly world, to which 
their desires and hopes are directed ; therefore the world feels that 
they are foreign to it, and thrusts them from it. Hence “ being of 
the world” indicates origin, and stands in contrast with “ being of 
God ;” “being in the world,” on the contrary, relates. merely to 
locality, which may be associated with an entire diversity of nature 
and disposition. 

Ver. 15, 16.—But since it is their vocation to bring down the 
nature of heaven to earth, the Redeemer cannot ask that they may, 
by a mere change of place, be removed from the conflict in the 
world ; on the contrary, they must remain in the world, but avoid 
the evil. Here it is plain (comp. the remarks oni. 9) that κόσμος 
and πονηρόν are not identical. The world simply contains elements 
of evil and likewise of good. Believers are to collect the latter in- 
to the church, but the former they are to shun, they themselves 
being born from the word of Christ (hence resembling him in their 
inmost nature), and, by reason of this, able to appropriate that 
which is kindred to it. (Tholuck thinks that, on account of the 
passages, 1 John ii. 13, 14; iii. 12; v.18, ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ is here to 
be understood as meaning the Devil, the Prince of this world. In 
this particular instance, however, this seems to me the less prob- 
able, because the words are parallel with ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. Had it been 
intended to parallelize the world with a personality, in my opinion 
this would have been more definitely expressed, for example by 
ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου.) 

Ver. 17-19.—The negative part of the prayer (ver. 11) is now 
followed by the positive. The Saviour having prayed for the pre- 


Joun XVII. 17-19. 595 


servation of the disciples from the hostile element, further entreats 
that they may be perfected in the right element of the truth. The 
connexion necessarily indicates that here again truth signifies, not 
merely a relative intellectual truth, but the essential truth, as we 
endeavoured to shew in the discussion of i. 14. The Divine Word, 
7. e., the spiritual communication of God, is the Truth itself, If 
λόγος, word, be understood as meaning the doctrine of God commu- 
nicated by Christ to the world, it deserves to be well considered 
that the doctrine as such cannot sanctify. The doctrine operates 
upon the understanding, and through it certainly may influence the 
will ; but since in this way nothing higher is imparted to man, it 
- would be necessary rather to say, that he sanctifies himself. Besides 
which, the doctrine frequently does πού influence the will, so that 
the right doctrine is contained in the head and the wrong inclina- 
tion in the heart. According to the view of John, however, the word 
of God is a Divine σπέρμα, seed, which fills the soul and awakens in 
it a higher life, while the same power that has awakened it also per- 
fects it. (Comp. 1 John ii. 14; iu. 9.) Christ proceeds in his 
prayer to say that the disciples urgently need this sanctification, 
because they are sent (like the Son by the Father) into the world 
(the future being viewed as already present and fulfilled),* in order 
to the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth, and therefore 
itis necessary that they also should be consecrated in the truth. 
This last statement (ver. 19) ἐγὼ ἁγεάζω ἐμαυτὸν, iva καὶ αὐτοὶ ory 
ἡγιασμένοι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, 7 I sanctify myself that, etc., occasions some dif- 
ficulty. Ido not mean the question whether ἁὡγιάζω ἐμαυτόν refers to 
the whole saving work of Christ (as has been maintained in accord- 
ance with the views of Socinians, especially by Heumann and Nés- 
selt), or to his sacrificial death ; for it is unanimously acknowledged 
by the modern expositors, that the latter opinion alone is correct. 
Liicke justly observes that the parallel (John xvi. 7, ff.), precisely 
like our passage, connects the communication of the Spirit of truth 
(and the sanctification thereby effected) with Christ’s departure. 
Besides which, it is only thus that the present tense gains its pro- 
per significance. Similarly the question, whether the words iva 
Gov ἡγιασμένοι τ to be understood just in the same way as ἁγιάζω 
ἐμαυτόν might easily be settled. This doubtless is to be answered 


* Liicke makes reference to the circumstance that the sending forth of the disciples 
had already occurred at an earlier period; but these earlier missions (comp. the Comm. 
Matth. x.) were rather preparatory operations than a real ἀποστολῆ, which did not take 
place till after the command Matth. xxviii. 18. 

+ Meyer lays stress upon the absence of the article in the expression ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, and 
takes it as merely equivalent to ἀληθῶς. But the phrase ἁγίασον ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ (ver. 17) 
evidently does not permit this, and the absence of the article is therefore only to bo ex- 
plained by the circumstance that the ἀλήθεια is treated as an idea sufficiently known from 
preceding passages, 


596 Joun XVII. 20, 21. 


affirmatively, the only variation in the sense being, that on acs 
count of the difference betweeen the position of Christ and that of 
the disciples, the term dyidgerv, applied to Christ himself, means 
only “to consecrate,” whereas, in application to the disciples, it 
signifies to consecrate, with the additional idea of previous sanc- 
tification, since nothing but what is holy can be presented as an 
offering.* But if, in accordance with this, the passage is to be 
translated, “‘ I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be 
consecrated in the truth,” it may be said that here the life of the dis- 
ciples, in its sacrificial character, is unduly parallel with the sacrificial 
death of Christ, the latter sublime fact being always represented in 
Scripture as an incomparable event. However, in the first place, 
analogous passages are not wanting, although they are rare. For 
example, 1 John 111. 16, the love of Christ, which impelled him to 
lay down his life for men, is set up as a model, that we also should 
lay down life for the brethren. And moreover the juxtaposition is 
so formed here that any misunderstanding, as to whether the apos- 
tles exercised a redeeming work resembling that of the Lord himself, 
is rendered impossible. The whole self-sacrificing work of the dis- 
ciples here appears as a mere result of the offering of Christ, since 
the language “1 consecrate myself,” etc., must be interpreted as 
meaning, ‘I consecrate myself (for you and for all) that ye also 
may then be enabled (by my power) to consecrate yourselves.” 

Ver. 20, 21.—The Redeemer now adds to the two petitions, for 
the preservation and sanctification of his own, the final request for 
the glorification of those preserved and sanctified. In presenting 
this last prayer, Christ immediately extends his view. He sees in the 
company of apostles the whole body of those who, through their 
word, believe in him, (According to the plan of the whole prayer, 
the ordinary reading πιστευσόντων is to be rejected, since the future 
is throughout viewed as present ; while the critical authorities also 
favour πιστευόντων.) In reference to this glorification, the Saviour 
first enters more largely into the subject briefly touched upon ver. 
11, viz., the unity of believers. This unity of believers in love is 
intended to be a witness to the world for the Divine mission of 
Christ, and the experience of the apostolic church has shewn,} 
how the glow of that love which is entertained by believers for 
each other has afforded proof to the heathen, that there must 
be a higher principle in the bosom of the despised new sect. In 
the course of time contentions certainly have often arisen, which 
have marred the beauteous form of the unity of the church; but it 
must be borne in mind that the language of the Lord in our pas- 
sage relates to the true, inward fellowship of the faithful, which 


* Respecting ἁγεάζειν and δοξάζειν, comp. the particulars John xiii. 31. 
+ In reference to this subject, comp. the Comm. on John xiii. 35. 


Joun XVII. 22-26, 597 


indeed exists in the external church, although not identical with it, 
and in this true church the unity of love has never been wanting. 
Respecting the idea itself of this unity, and the parallel between 
the oneness of the disciples and that subsisting between Father and 
Son, with which the former is compared, we have said what is 
necessary in the exposition of x. 30, xiv. 10, The mode of view 
peculiar to John by no means permits us to regard the unity of 
believers merely as an accordant will, allowing every one to remain 
in his own isolation; on the contrary, it is in conformity to the 
Spirit of Christ, a uniting element that destroys all isolation, and 
blends souls together ; and it is by this alone that harmony of will 
is rendered possible. All attempts to bring it about in any other 
way, by force, instruction, or persuasion, have to this day proved 
abortive, and they always will be so in time to come. Accordingly, 
the parallel of the unity of believers with the unity of the Father 
and the Son can only favour the oneness of nature expressed by 
ἕν εἶναι, to be one, and can afford no evidence whatever against it.* 
Ver. 22, 23.—But the unity itself which the Lord entreats for 
his own is again capable of inward enhancement. In the very first 
beginnings of the Christian life, in which man still, like a feeble 
child, needs protection, the energy of uniting love (ver. 11), displays 
itself, but it is not till he experiences the glorifying power of 
Christ that he is perfect in this love (fva dot τετελειωμένοι εἰς Ev, ver. 
23). Since it is said, concerning this perfected unity in love, that 
God has sent Christ (the founder of that unity) in order that the 
world may know it, the glory, ver. 22, must be clearly understood as 
meaning that glorification of the inner life which is manifested here 
below, Only, it must not be overlooked that the glory of the pres- 
ent state forms, as it were, a continuous chain with that which is to 
be expected in eternity ; as the eternal life, so also the glory of 
the believer already begins cnternally. The advance in the thought 
is plainly shewn at the conclusion of ver, 23, since to the words ὅτι 
σύ με ἀπέστειλας, that thou hast sent me (which in ver. 21 stood alone), 
is added καὶ ἠγάπησας αὐτοὺς, καθὼς ἑμὲ ἠγάπησας, and thou hast 
loved them, as ἕλοι, hast loved me. Accordingly the apostles do 
not merely point, by their glory, to Christ as the source of it, but 
they also appear as independent objects of Divine love. And these 
new sublime thoughts now complete the concluding verses of the 
prayer. 
Ver. 24-26.—At first indeed the connexion appears to lead on 
* Very similar expressions respecting the union with the Absolute occur also in the 
writings of the Mohammedan Mystics. (Comp. Tholuck, Blithensamml. p. 120, and 
125.) They conceive of a union of essence, but they associate it with the annihilation of 
personal consciousness, so that the individual is lost, like a drop in the ocean of Deity. 


According to the Christian view, consciousness, so far from being annihilated in the uniog 
with God, is, on the contrary, only thus truly perfected in its peculiar character. 


598 Joun XVII. 24-26. 


to some new topic, since, ver. 24, a new petition follows—that the 
Father will collect all believers to the Lord. (Comp. the Comm. 
on xii. 26.) However a closer view of the passage shews that there 
is no transition to a different subject, but that the Lord merely 
carries the thoughts already embraced in his discourse, to their com- 
pletion, For since it was said, ver. 22, that Christ had given the 
glory to his people, the Redeemer cannot mean the same glory here, 
when he speaks of their beholding it in their union with him ; on 
the contrary, here the word refers to the perfected glory of the 
heavenly world, while previously it designated inward glorification. 
The beholding of the glory of Christ, however, involves to a certain 
degree, the possession of it, 7. e., so to speak, its reflection; but, at 
the same time, the expression clearly indicates that in Christ a 
glory will be manifested of so peculiar a nature that the contempla- 
tion of it, like the vision of God (Matth. v. 8), may be a designation 
of felicity. (Respecting πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμον, comp. ver. 5, πρὸ τοῦ 
τὸν κόσμον εἶναι, The expression occurs also Matth. xiii. 35.) 

In reference to the fulfilment of this request, the Son appeals to 
the righteousness of the Father, who alike excludes from the vision 
of his glory a godless world, and admits to it the godly believer. 
Tholuck, on the passage, says that δίκαιος is here to be taken as 
equal to ἅγιος (ver. 11); but, although it is certain that the two 
ideas are related, it is quite as certain that they are not exactly 
identical. There would have been more ground for proposing to 
take δίκαιος here in the signification of ‘‘ good” (a sense which the 
word evidently bears, Matth. i. 19), since it might appear unfitting 
that Christ should here appeal to the Divine righteousness. But 
let it be borne in mind that in these words the Lord refers to the 
separation between the world and the children of God ; and it will 
be seen that the mention of the Divine righteousness in relation to 
this its manifestation, is to be regarded as in the highest degree 
appropriate. 

In conclusion, the knowledge of God (ver. 3), which is life eter- 
nal itself, is again placed prominently in view as the privilege of the 
disciples, with this additional circumstance, that it is represented as 
continually increasing (kai γνωρίσω). Its result then is the indwell- 
ing of the highest and purest love itself, that love with which the 
Father loves the Son. And the indwelling of this (John xiv. 23) 
in the soul involves the participation of the Divine nature, for God 
48 love ! (1 John iv. 8). Thus, as the individual believer is said to 
be a temple of the Holy Ghost, so also the Deity makes an abode 
in men collectively, and this constitutes the perfection of the whole. 
That, of which man, αὐ the outset of his history, in reckless self- 
seeking, tried to deprive himself (Gen. iii. 5), humanity receives at 


Joun XVII. 24-26. 599 


last through the Redeemer, as the gift of grace, viz., glorification 
in God. 

With this elevated thought the Redeemer concludes his prayer 
for his disciples, and in them for his church through all ages. He 
has compressed into the last moments given him for conversation 
with his own, the most sublime and glorious sentiments ever uttered 
by mortal lips. But hardly has the sound of the last word died 
away, when Jesus passes with his disciples over the brook Cedron 
to Gethsemane—and the bitter conflict draws on. The seed of the 
new world must be sown in death, that thence life may spring up ! 

The Evangelists have given their representations of the suffer- 
ings and death of the Son of God, as well as of his subsequent re- 
surrection, in such detailed and kindred forms, that we must devote 
to them a separate synoptical consideration. 


Bains ihe 
Pork γο ‘Ham oth ὡ 
cia 4977 ad 


 siegutt 
ν᾿ οἷν vt ett te itd 
mine ve sonra ipo. ἘΠ 


THE 


SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION 


or 


JESUS CHRIST. 


me ae 
Ἷ Seat Ἱ ἣν 


an) ΤῊΝ iy 


rh iG ν 


INTRODUCTION. 


THE accounts given by the four Evangelists of the passion, 
death, and resurrection of Christ, constitute a whole, complete in 
itself, which, from its chief feature, we entitle “‘ The History of His 
Passion,” and will subject to a separate consideration. Not only 
have all our canonical gospels treated this portion of the history of 
the Lord, as its importance demanded, with an unwonted and fond 
minuteness in that they present in regard to a few days very special 
accounts, and thus distinguish this above the remaining parts of the 
gospel history—but, also, it bespeaks regard for itself, from the fact of 
its representing, in the picture of the Saviour himself, altogether 
another character from what we have hitherto discovered in the four 
gospels. Although, for instance, the garment of lowliness and 
poverty enwrapt the whole external character of the Lord, from the 
manger to the cross, yet hitherto from under this garment of ob- 
scurity, an astonishing glory revealed itself. Though Jesus had not 
where to lay his head, he still ruled already as king and as prophet. 
He spoke as never man had spoken, He legislated over the hearts 
of his friends. He ruled in the very midst of his enemies, who— 
restrained by the invisible bands of the Spirit—could not restrain 
him in his comprehensive ministry. He exercised unlimited sway 
over the powers of nature: commanded the storms: walked upon 
the waves of the sea: fed thousands with a few loaves: healed the 
sick: and cast out evil spirits. But in the last days of the Sa- 
viour’s earthly pilgrimage, this beaming splendour which encom- 
passes his elevated form, gradually disappears. His discourse, at 
once meek and forcible, ceases for the multitude of hearers, to whom 
it had been uttered in vain. Jesus confines himself to the little 
company of his own disciples, and seeks to implant uneradicably in 
their hearts the germs of the kingdom of God. His splendid mira- 
cles cease. Everything brilliant, everything unwonted, vanishes, 


᾿ 


604 INTRODUCTION. 


The poverty and lowliness of the exterior extend themselves over his 
internal character. He sinks down deeper, as it were, from step 
to step. The eye, indeed, that is rendered keen for the appre- 
hension of true glory and beauty discerns in this absolute humi- 
liation, the secret splendour of the heavenly form, with all the 
more purity and clearness. For although the active virtues shine 
more splendidly, the passive virtues are higher and more difficult ; 
and these come out perfected in the suffering of Christ. The 
history of the passion breathes only heavenly patience, meekness, 
* and forbearance. 

Now, if we conceive and judge of Christ merely as human, even 
under that view, the history of his sufferings presents an affecting, 
a deeply impressive picture. But it is only the higher view of the 
Lord’s character that furnishes here a true perception of the signifi- 
cancy of the events which the Evangelists relate of his last days 
upon earth. 

The faith that in Christ Jesus the word of the Father became 
flesh ; that all the prophets prophesied of him, and his appearing ; 
that he was appointed to ransom what was forfeited by the fall of 
man, and to restore all that was lost; this faith gives to the his- 
tory of his passion the full significance which belongs to it ; reveals 
the connexion between the suffering and death of Christ Jesus and 
his resurrection ; as also the object of all these sublime events. It 
was the Lord of glory who hung upon the cross—Acts iii. 15—who 
at every moment had power to descend from the cross and escape 
alike from pain and death. His suffering and death appear to the 
eye of faith not as something brought about through the power of 
circumstances: not as a noble sacrifice for a peculiar truth, for a 
sublime idea—but as the sacrifice of the Son of God presented out 
of free love, for the reconciliation of an entire sinful world. His 
resurrection appears as the necessary sequel of that death of pure 
love, in that the all-conquering power of love vanquished death it- 
self, and life could not be held by its bands. If in the history of 
the sufferings and resurrection of Jesus, we thus perceive the cen- 
tral feature of the Gospel, the source of the new life which resides 
in it, then will our apprehension of it assume a corresponding and 
peculiar form. It will then appear to us less improbable than it is 
otherwise wont to be to man, that the individual events in this his- 
tory which are often very specially narrated, constitute significant 
features in the memorable picture. It will all gain in significance 
for us, because of referring to him, and to him in these sacred mo- 
ments The external circumstances indeed are not of that charac- 
ter upon which much weight can be laid. There forces itself on the 
believer a nobler way of apprehending the history, in accordance 


INTRODUCTION. 605 


with which, we discover not mere accidents, but an arrangement 
determined from above, which in actions and events, speaks to the 
world an almost living language. Hence although the mouth of 
truth became silent, and crucified love no longer uttered its exhor- 
tations to men, yet the whole proceeding with the Lord spoke, 
and still speaks, to the world of sin, more livingly and powerfully, 
through all the particular incidents which completed it, than all the 
conceivable exhortations and warnings of prophets and men of God. 
The suffering, dying, and victoriously rising Saviour, with the vari- 
ous circumstances which surrounded him, affords a complete picture 
of that great strife between the realms of good and evil, about 
which the world’s history moves in its development. In this accep- 
tation the history of his suffering first acquires its profound—one 
might say its infinite, character. 

Tf, for instance, in the history of Christ’s last moments upon 
earth, we regard merely its external features, then may the trials of 
many other ‘sufferers seem heavier measured by the agonies which 
accumulated upon them: more imposing through the firmness and 
persistency of the sufferers, since Jesus appeared fainting and waver- 
ing in the inmost recesses of his soul (a circumstance which is more 
closely considered, in the account of the Lord’s conflict in Geth- 
semane); and more attractive, through the abundance of exciting 
events in their struggles. 

But regarded in its internal aspect, as little can any other 
historical phenomenon whatever bear comparison with that of 
Christ’s sufferings and death, as any human teacher whatever 
with him personally. Whilst it is the sublimest mission of 
the earthly sage to be a genuine enquirer after truth, Christ 
is the essential truth itself, which he seeks. So, in like manner, 
all the beams of splendid virtues which ever displayed them- 
selves in human champions or sufferers for truth and right, ap- 
pear united in him as their Sun, and melted into an inexpressible 
unity of essence and existence. Thus, as in relation to knowl- 
edge, so also in relation to being, Christ is the centre from 
which all knowledge and being proceed even to those existences 
that move on the outermost circles of creature life, and to which 
they must return. ' ' 

As special treatises on the portion of the evangelical history 
which we comprehend in this section, should be noticed :— 

Byneeus, “de Morte Jesu Christi,’ Libri Tres. Amstelodami, 
1691-98, 3, vols. 4. 

J. D. Michaelis’ “Erklirung der Begriibniss-,und Auferste- 
hungsgeschichte Christi.” Halle, 1783—Mit einem Anhang ente 


606 INTRODUCTION. 


haltend das fiinfte Fragment des Wolfenbiittelschen Fragmentis- 
ten, mit Anmerkungen von J. D. Michaelis, Halle, 1785. 

J. W. Henneberg’s “‘ Commentar iiber die Geschichte der Leiden 
und des Todes Jesu.” Leipzig, 1822. 

Desselben ‘ Commentar iiber die Geschichte des Begribnisses, 
der Auferstehung, und Himmelfahrt Jesu.” Leipzig, 1826. 


1, 


FIRST PART. 


OF THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST. 


(Matth. xxvi. xxvii; Mark xiv., xv.; Luke xxii. xxiii.; John xviii, xix.) 


(Matth. xxvi. 17.) 


BEFORE we proceed to an explication of particulars, we shall take 
a brief general survey of the relation sustained by the four Evan- 
gelists, to the order of events, in the History of the Passion, in the 
narrower sense of the words. Whilst John so early as in the pas- 
sage chap. xili. 1, describes the last meal of the Saviour with his 
disciples—a description which, with the discourses of the Lord con- 
nected with it, extends to John xvii. 26—Matthew enters far later 
upon this delineation (Matth. xxvi. 17. Compare therewith Mark 
xiv. 12,and Luke xxii. 7). From this it may seem that a synoptical 
treatment of all the four Gospels, in this section of the evangelical 
history, would involve great difficulties. Upon closer examination, 
these are far less than might be expected. With the exception of 
the one account, of the anointing in Bethany, by Mary (John xii. 1 
-ὃ ; Matth. xxvi. 6-13) which we have already reviewed in the ex- 
position of John, the three synoptical Gospels impart no fact which 
should be placed antecedent to the last meal, John xiii. 1, seq. Only 
in two short sentences, couched in general terms (Matth. xxvi. 1-5, 
and 14-16, with their parallels in Mark and Luke), the particulars 
of which shall receive their explication in other places, do they 
make mention of the malicious designs previously conceived by the 
Pharisees, and of the treason of Judas. 

The case, then, assumes this aspect. We have only two several 
accounts concerning the last meal of Jesus with his disciples ; the 
one, by John, which has been already considered, in the connected 
exposition of that Evangelist. The second, the account of the 
Synoptical authors, which now les immediately before us. 

The single passage, John xiii. 21-29, in which the question is 
respecting the treatment of Judas in his position, was in the inter- 


608 Mattuew X XVI. 17. 


pretation of John’s Gospel postponed till we should come to the 
elucidation of Matth. xxvi, 20, seq.; because it concurs too directly 
with the narratives of the Synoptical Evangelists, for the one rela- 
tion to be treated upon without the other. The continuous compar- 
ison of all the four narratives begins, therefore, with the passage 
John xviii. 1, seq., where the capture of the Lord is recorded. As, 
for example, in the account of Christ’s last supper with his disci- 
ples, John gives the fullest information, in that he alone records 
consecutively the sublime discourses which the Saviour delivered to 
the company of his disciples after the conclusion of the meal ; the 
relations seem entirely reversed in that part of the evangelical his- 
tory which lies between the entry into Jerusalem, five days before 
Easter, and the last supper—John xii. 1-12 ; Matth. xxi. 1; Mark 
xi. 1; Luke xix. 29. Here, with Luke, John is. the most concise 
narrator—(compare the particulars in the commentary on Matth. xxi. 
1)—for he entirely omits all those important discourses and conver- 
sations which the Lord held at Jerusalem with the Pharisees and 
the disciples, according to Matthew—chap. xxi. 25—who is here the 
most copious. It is only because of the few points of concurrence 
between John and the Synoptical Gospels, up to the capture of the 
Lord, that a separate treatment of the two narratives, previous to 
that event, is at all desirable. In this manner we have already to 
some extent arranged them, and shall treat similarly the Synoptical 
writers’ account of the passover. From the arrest of Christ, how- 
ever, a precise synoptical treatment of the four historians is per- 
fectly practicable. 


‘ 


§ 1. Toe Last ΜΈΛΙ, or Jesus with His Discretes 
(Matth. xxvi. 17-35. Mark xiv. 12-31. Luke xxii. 7-38. John xiii. 21-29.) 


The Lord had ended his great public ministry. His discourse, 
which even in the immediately preceding days, had flowed forth 
so powerfully in warnings, reproofs, exhortations, and prophecies, 
was silent. The obduracy of the Pharisees, and the unbelief of the 
people, had limited its operation. But no obduracy, no unbelief, 
could retard the completion of the sublime work of Christ. With 
the firm conviction that his death was near, the Redeemer came to 
the feast at Jerusalem. And with heroic constancy he advanced to 
meet death ; that, from his fall, new life might spring forth for a 
sinful world ; and that the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, might come, 
who should remind the disciples of all that the Lord had spoken, 
that they might be qualified to take up again his apparently inoper- 
ative words, and, through the Scriptures, to establish their signifi- 
cance and power for centuries, and for millions. 


MarrHew XXVI. 17. 609 


From the tumultuous world of the festally-excited Jerusalem, 
the Saviour now retired into the quiet circle of his chosen. The 
Twelve whom he had selected to be the supports and pillars of an 
entirely new world, were they in whose midst Jesus resolved to 
solemnize the festival. Yet in that most limited company, the em- 
pire of evil had its representative. Indeed, not one of the disciples, 
to the depth of his nature, was so grounded and confirmed in good- 
ness as to be able absolutely to resist the approaching assault of the 
enemy. When the Shepherd was smitten, ad/ the sheep dispersed 
themselves. Still, only one had laid himself so open to the sugges- 
tions of evil that, instead of being a friend—even though a weak 
one—he became the enemy of the Holy One of God. This unhappy 
man, then, Judas Iscariot, was in the beginning still present amongst 
the twelve ; later on, however, he left a circle which he had long 
previously deserted in spirit. The presence and the absence of this 
lost child, must naturally give to the meal an entirely distinct char- 
acter, and, accordingly, it divides itself into two unequal portions. 

The latter alone conveys the impression of a thoroughly inti- 
mate association of Jesus with his faithful ones, the pure blessedness 
of which was troubled only by a glance at the still prospective hour 
of separation, and of bitter suffering. All the four historians pass 
rapidly over the first part ; concerning it they relate barely so much 
as seemed necessary to make known the manner in which the in- 
tercourse between the Lord and his disciples was carried on, whilst 
Judas was still amongst them. But they linger with cordial sym- 
pathy and love over the description of the second part, where the 
Saviour revealed himself to them in the whole fulness of his Divine 
nature. John, in an especial manner, dwells with a yearning and 
wistful satisfaction upon those moments during which he reposed 
for the last time on the bosom of Jesus, as if he hesitated to de- 
scribe the hours, the remembrance of which must have so deeply 
troubled his soul. 

As regards, then, the particular incidents of the meal, which 
have been related by the Evangelists, it has been already noticed 
that John communicates different particulars from the Synoptical 
writers, up to John xii, 21-29, which passage coincides with the ac- 
counts of these latter. The deviations, however, in the narrative 
of Luke from John, as well as from Matthew and Mark, render a 
careful examination of the succession of the separate incidents of 
the meal necessary. 

Luke, for example, places the complaint of Jesus concerning 
his betrayer, after the institution of the holy supper (Luke xxii. 21 
-23), whilst in Matthew and Mark it stands before that event. 
John, indeed, as was already observed at John xiii. 1, seq., does not 


mention the institution of the supper at all, and hence, the priority 
Vou. Il.—s9 


610 Mattuew XXVI. 17. 


or subsequence to this fact, of the complaint concerning the traitor, 
cannot be precisely determined. From the idea of the holy supper 
itself, however, which must have been a feast of the most intimate 
love and union, it is in the highest degree probable that so uncon- 
genial a member as Judas could have had no part in it ; not to 
mention that it would even have been contrary to the love and 
mercy of the Lord to permit the traitor further to augment his 
guilt, by partaking of it unworthily. Another particular in ‘the 
narrative of Luke which does not coincide with John’s account, is 
the placing of the strife among the disciples, as to who should be 
the greatest in the kingdom of God, after the complaint concerning 
the betrayer, Luke xxii. 24-30, This dispute, as the words in Luke 
intimate, was undoubtedly connected with the feet-washing—John 
xill. 4-20. Through this symbolical act the Lord wished to make 
manifest to them that self-abasing love is the only true elevation~ 
in the kingdom of God. Now John shews, mii. 4, that the feet- 
washing occurred during the meal, and probably at the beginning 
of it, whilst the complaint concerning the traitor should, as we have 
seen, be placed before the supper. And the supper, according to 
the clear expressions of Luke himself, with whom Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 
25, literally agrees, followed immediately upon the Passover. (Μετὰ 
TO δειπνῆσαι.) 

We mist hence conclude that Luke has evidently on neither 
point reported minutely: According to him we might be misled 
into the belief that Judas partook of the holy supper, which cor- 
responds neither with the narratives of Matthew and Mark, nor 
with the idea of the holy ceremony. So also it might be inferred 
that the disciples had striven one with another, after the holy sup- 
per, which is manifestly entirely contrary to the state of their souls 
on the occasion, as we learn from John. This fact is explicable, 
less, indeed, from the circumstance that Luke himself was not pres- 
ent at the supper—for that would equally affect Mark, who yet re- 
ports with exactness—than from the fact that his special design in 
this narrative, was evidently not to give a perfect picture of the 
proceedings at the supper, but only to furnish supplementary infor- 
mation. Hence he here regarded the sequence of events less than 
the communications themselves. But, if we take all the four re- 
lations together, the individual incidents in the last meal of Jesus 
arrange themselves thus: In the first place, the Synoptical writers 
record the preparation made for the feast by the command of Jesus. 
Then Luke alone, xxii. 14-18, contains the Saviour’s words introdu- 
cing the meal itself, as well as the mention of the first cup which 
was given round at it. Next follows the strife amongst the disci- 
ples as to who should be the greatest, Luke xxii, 24-30. With 
that is closely connected the account of the feet-washing. which 


Matruew XXVI. 17. 611 


John alone’gives, John xiii. 4-20, After this transaction, came the 
complaint concerning the betrayer, and the consequent withdrawal 
of Judas. Upon his retiring, the Saviour’s love to his disciples, like 
a stream long restrained, broke forth from his heart, in the words, 
“Now is the Son of Man glorified,” John xiii. 31, seq. To these 
words attached itself, according to the intimation of John xiii. and 
Xxxvi. seq., the warning to Peter, which Luke alone contains, Luke 
xxii. 81-38 ; then followed the institution of the sacred supper, 
the rising from supper after the hymn, and, finally, the discourses, 
John chap. xiv.—xvii., which Christ uttered to his disciples, probably 
whilst yet standing in the apartment. 

According to this order of sequences, we shall illustrate the 
several events in the last meal, with the exception of John’s ac- 
count (up to the above-mentioned passage, John xiii, 21-29), which 
has been already investigated in the connected exposition of this 
Evangelist. : 

First, however, the character of the accounts given by the 
synoptical Evangelists, requires for their proper comprehension, an 
examination of the manner in which the Jews solemnized the 
paschal feast. John’s description required this the less, because it 
scarcely touches upon the peculiar forms of this solemn festival ; we 
therefore passed them over at the passage John xiii. 1. But the 
narrative of Luke, in its relation to Matthew and Mark, renders the 
consideration of the Jewish customs indispensable. Besides the 
ordinances in the Pentateuch, we possess, it is true, only the later 
notices of the festival contained in the Talmud. But it is entirely 
probable, that a knowledge of the manner in which the feast was 
solemnized, was rightly preserved in its essentials by tradition. 

The Passover was confessedly, according to the Mosaic legisla- 
tion, next to the feasts of Pentecost and Tabernacles, the chief 
feast of the Jews. It was, as is known, founded upon the exodus 
from Egypt, and took its name from the sparing of the first-born. 
The name of the paschal lamb noe [from hee to spare ; sparing, to 
pass over] was transferred to the feast itself, as an offering for 
the sparing of the first-born. The Greek πάσχα is formed after the 
Araamic xnoe, Another usual name of the feast was nism 4n, to 
which corresponds the Greek ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων, feast of unleavened 
bread, Luke xxii. 1, and which was borrowed from the unleavened 
bread, the use of which is peculiar to this feast. The sacrifice and 
eating of a lamb formed the introduction to the passover. This was 
regarded as an offering for the sparing of the first-born, and hence, 
possessed, on the one hand, the true nature of a sacrifice (which 
involves always the idea of an offering on behalf of another); whilst, 
on the other hand, it was devoted to pleasure and enjoymént, be- 
cause out of its sacrifice the feeling of deliverance evolved itself 


612 Marrnew XXVI. 17. 


vividly. In modern times, it has been denied that the paschal 
lamb was at all α sacrifice, although it is expressly stated to be 
so in the Mosaic law. (Compare Exodus xii, 27, xxiii, 18, xxxiv. 
25.) Even Hengstenberg (Christology, p. 277) believes himself 
compelled to acknowledge that it was not an offering of atonement.” 

This is so far correct, that the paschal lamb cannot be accounted. 
either a debt-offering or a sin-offering, which alone expressed the 
idea of atonement, for, in the first place, no lambs were used on 
these occasions, and secondly, the offerings were entirely consumed 
by fire ; but the paschal lamb, like a thank-offering, was, for the 
most part, eaten by the persons who offered it. The idea of substi- 
tution is not the less clear, however, in the offering of the paschal 
lamb, for the posts of the dwellings of the Israelites were sprinkled 
with its blood, in order that the destroying angel might pass over, 
Exodus xii. 7. It may be asserted, therefore, with the utmost cor- 
rectness, that the paschal lamb possessed a τοι: character entirely 
its own. It blended the peculiarity of the expiatory offering with 
that of the thank-offering, and in this very union displayed most 
impressively its typical character as a symbol of the offering of 
Christ, uniting at once motives for the profoundest sorrow, and oc- 
casion for the most triumphant joy. 

The paschal lamb, as the jirst offering enjoined by God, for the 
Israelites, and as the germ of all the others, included in itself all 
their collective peculiarities. 

On the tenth of the month Nisan or Abib, the master of the 
house, in accordance with the institution of Moses, was to select the 
male-kid for the sacrifice. It might be of the sheep or of the goats, 
only, like all sacrificial beasts, without blemish. On the fourteenth 
day of the same month towards evening (tv=597 y2—LHxodus xii. 6 
—a vague expression, which sometimes was understood to mean 
the time before sunset, from three to six o’clock in the afternoon, 
and sometimes the time after sunset, from six to nine o’clock in the 
evening) the victim was to be slaughtered in the temple (on this 
account the passover could be held in Jerusalem only), and the meal 
prepared. The fourteenth of Nisan, moreover, might fall on any 
day of the week, according to the custom of the Jews at the time 
of Christ, as is proved incontestably by the history of the Haster- 
Controversies in the ancient church, It was in the Christian church 
that the custom gradually predominated, of fixing the Haster festi- 
val always on the Sunday. The calendar of the modern Jews is so 


* Scholl, in his work on The Ideas of Offerings, amongst the ancients, especially the 
Jews—in Klaibers Stud. Der Evang. Geistlichk. in Wirtemberg, 4ten Bandes, erstes Heft 
Stuttgardt, 1832, 8. 50, f_—proves that in the Old Testament view, every offering, even 
the thank-offering was regarded as expiatory, if the offerer stood in need of expiation 
Expiation was in all offerings the essentially fundamental idea. 


MatrHew XXVI. 17. 613 


regulated, indeed, that the fifteenth of Nisan can never fall on a 
Friday. (Compare Ideler’s Chronological Manual, B. I. sect. 515, 
seq.) But this custom cannot, as is done by Ideler, and by Hitzig 
(Ostend und Pfingsten, a circular letter to Ideler, Heidel., 1837, p. 
33), be transferred to earlier times. 

This latter regulation of the Jews originated, perhaps, merely 
from a desire to prevent the coincidence of the feast with the 
Christian Sabbath. The other hypothesis of Hitzig is also entirely 
erroneous, and moreover stands in opposition to this assamption.— 
(Compare in Loc. Cit. sect. 26.) It is that the week Sabbath 
always coincided with the festival Sabbath. To determine when 
the feast should begin, depended solely upon the relation of the 
moon’s phases to the vernal equinox, and was altogether independent 
of the days of the week. (Compare Neander’s Kirchengesch., B. II. 
Ῥ. 522, seq.) 

For the proper solemnization of the feast, which extended from 
the fifteenth to the twenty-first of Nisan, the dwelling was carefully 
purged of all leaven. Compare on the significance of this symbol- 
ical usage 1 Cor, v. 6, seq. and the exposition of this passage ; and 
during the feast only unleavened bread (ἄζυμα --- nis) was used as 
bread of sorrow : ἄρτος πένθους, ὀδύνης, θλίψεως, Deut. xvi. 3; Psalms 
exxvul. 2; 1 Kings xxii. 27. The paschal lamb itself was not to be 
seethed in water, but roasted with fire. It was eaten with bitter 
herbs (ts) and unleavened bread. At the meal, not under ten, 
and not over twenty persons might be present, who were to consume 
the whole lamb ; the residue was burnt with fire. 

Their conduct during the meal was likewise specially es 
and, according to the later account of the Talmud, was as follows. 
The head of the household, who officiated as priest, commenced the 
ceremony with a short prayer, and then handed round to those 
present, a cup of wine mixed with water. After all had drank and 
washed their hands, the viands mentioned, viz., the paschal lamb, 
the bitter herbs, with the wnleavened bread, and other dishes, were 
served up. Whilst they ate, the son of the house asked the father 
what all this imported, and the latter then mentioned that it was 
done in commemoration of the departure from Egypt. The 113th 
and 114th Psalms were then read, the first of which is a general 
song of praise; but the other is a song of triumph, in which the 
departure out of Egypt is described as a mighty saving interposition 
of Jehovah. After this the second cup is passed round, and, when 
all had partaken of it, the master of the house took the unleavened 
bread, formed into thin flat cakes, broke it, and divided it among 
those ‘present, who dipped it in the liquor of the bitter herbs (ren) 
and ate it. The third cup, which is called ‘ The cup of blessing,” 
(mz5=0 03), was then handed round, and to this succeeded the singing 


614 Marrssw XXVI. JT. 


of Psalms cxv.-cxvili. After the fourth cup, the Psalms cxx.- 
CXXXVii., were sometimes recited ; (these (cxx.—cxxxiv.) are the so 
called songs of degrees; together with certain psalms of praise, 
collectively entitled the great hallelujah), and the feast concluded 
with a fifth cup. (Compare on this Lundius’ Jiidische Heiligthi- 
mer, p. 970, and Jahn’s Alterth. Th. ii. Winer’s Bibl. Reallex, B. 
II. p. 230. In the Old Testament the principal passages upon the 
paschal feast are Exodus xii. 1-20 ; Levit. xxiii. 4-8 ; Numb. xxviii. 
16-25 ; Deut. xvi. 1-8.) 

The accounts which the Evangelists give of the Passover of Jesus 
agree in essentials with the above description. The Lord officiated 
amongst his disciples as head of the family, and priest. He engaged 
in the prayer and song—broke the bread and divided the cups of 
wine—but above all, seized the moral uses of the passover in their 
deepest significance, and consecrated them to holy transactions of a 
higher kind, which were to be repeated in the New Jerusalem, the 
Church of the Lord, until the day of his second coming (1 Cor. xi. 26.) 

After these general remarks we shall consider, first, the narrative 
of the synoptical Evangelists (Matth. xxvi. 17-19, and parallels) 
regarding the preparations for the paschal feast at Jerusalem. The 
account is thought by many to include a miraculous element. Mi- 
raculous, accordingly, must be the foreknowledge of Jesus, that the 
two disciples whom he sent should meet a servant with a cruse of 
water !* Miraculous, also, the giving of the apartment for the pass- 
over by the householder! But the narrative does not furnish the 
impartial interpreter with the slightest reason which could justify 
this view: and while it is doubtless absolutely necessary to guard 
ourselves from taking a superficial view of those narratives in which 
the writers manifestly intended to exhibit a miraculous element, it 
is not less necessary to avoid obtruding that element into passages 
where it is not expressly indicated. It corresponds perfectly with 
the scope of the narratives, that Christ had previously covenanted 
with a person in Jerusalem who was favourably disposed, and had 
arranged to hold the passover with the disciples in an apartment of 
his house. That the Lord did not plainly mention the man’s name 
and residence to the disciples whom he sent before to prepare for all 
the Twelve, but referred them to the guidance of a servant, is 
easily explained. As Theophylact, and many after him, have ob- 
served, it was in order that Judas Iscariot should not know before- 
hand where the paschal feast was to be solemnized ; otherwise he 
would have been able to give the high priests an opportunity of ar- 
resting Jesus in the city previous to the feast. But the Saviour 

* The event certainly seems to involve a miracle, and is precisely parallel to our 


Lord’s sending the disciples for the colt on which he was to ride into Jerusalem. Ags ta 
the reasons for it, it is sufficient that there is none against it.—K. 


Matruew XXVI. 17. 615 


was, on this occasion, naturally desirous of observing the sacred 
ceremony in peace and tranquillity with his followers. On their 
coming to the feast, Judas learned, indeed, where it was to be held, but 
he could not now withdraw himself for the purpose of announcing it 
to the priests, without exciting suspicion ; and when he was induced 
to depart, before the Supper, the night had already fallen (John 
xiii. 30), so that Judas could not hope, even had he collected the 
officials, to find Jesus still in the city ; therefore he led them straight 
to Gethsemane. 

In attempting to maintain the miraculous character of the trans- 
action, it will be found impossible to assign a sufficient object for - 
the miracle ; yet this is the true criterion by which veritable mira- 
cles are to be distinguished from useless playing with higher powers. 
And what object of the miraculous can be perceived in such an oc- 
currence ? It may be said, that it would serve to strengthen the 
faith of the disciples. But, in the first place, they betrayed no 
such weakness, as rendered the corroboration of their faith neces- 
sary at that particular moment. And then, after the infinitely 
more sublime miracles which they had witnessed, the fact was not 
sufficiently significant to fortify them essentially. Finally, that it 
might be at all acknowledged as a miracle, it must have been added, 
that no pre-arrangement had taken place. And, since the historians 
do not intimate this with even a word, the view of the occurrence 
which we have taken is manifestly the only one which is tenable. 

Finally, the accounts of Luke and Mark are distinguished from 
the rest, by their carefulness and the minuteness of their informa- 
tion. Both make mention of the man with the jar of water who 
should conduct the two disciples—describe the kind of room chosen 
for the festival, and Luke xxii. 8 expressly mentions Peter and 
John as the two disciples who received the order to make the prepa- 
rations for the evening. i 

Matth. xxvi. 17.—The synoptical writers unanimously state the 
day on which this preparation was made, as the first day of unleay- 
ened bread (πρώτη ἡμέρα τῶν ἀζύμων). Matthew’s addition : ποῦ θέ- 
λεις ἑτοιμάσωμέν σοι φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα ; where wilt thou that we pre- 
pare, etc.—and still more definitely the statements of Mark (ὅτε τὸ 
πάσχα ἔθνον, 501]. of "Iovdator)—and of Luke (ἐν ἡ ἔδει θύεσθαι τὸ πάσ-- 
χα), leave no doubt whatever as to the meaning of the expression. 
The day meant was that on which they had already removed all 
leaven and leavened bread from the houses, and when, at the close 
of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th of Nisan, which, accord - 
ing to the Jewish custom, was about sunset, or six o’clock in the 
evening, they slaughtered the lamb, with the eating of which the 
feast opened,* 

* According to Rauch’s view, to be presently more exactly characterized, and which 


616 MatrHew XXVI. 17. 


If this passage were considered by itself, no difficulty could ever 
have arisen ; it arises only upon comparing the passages John xiii. 
1, xvili. 28, xix. 14 and 31. From John’s account, for example, it 
would seem that the Redeemer had not eaten the paschal lamb at 
the legally-appointed period, or at the same time as the Jews ; nay, 
since he has not even spoken of the passover, it would be doubt- 
ful from his account, whether or not Christ solemnized this festival 
with his disciples at all. It may also appear remarkable that the 
Jews, as appears from the representation of the synoptical Evan- 
gelists, must have condemned Jesus on the first day of the passover; 
which seems opposed to the character of the feast! But on this 
point it is not to be overlooked that they who executed the sentence 
were certainly heathen Romans. As regards the judicial proceed- 
ings, so little contrary were they to the character of the feast, that, 
as Tholuck, on John xui. 1, observes, the Judges had a larger hall 
for their sittings (¢4132-%272) on the Sabbaths and feast days, because 
on such days the cases were more numerous. The passing of the 
sentence, and every thing connected therewith, as, for example, im- 
prisonment, were regarded as sacred proceedings, corresponding en- 
tirely with the character of the feast. Compare, on this point, John 
vil, 87, 45, 46 ; John x. 31; Acts xu. 3. To this it must be added 
that the typical character of the paschal lamb, 1 Cor. v. 7, renders 
the hypothesis that the Lord died on the same day on which the 
paschal lamb should be slain, extremely probable. 

The proper difficulty arises from the passages of John quoted 
above. These, regarded separately, may, however, be reconciled 
without much labour up to the passage John xvii. 28. John xii, 1, 
the πρὸ dé τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα, and before the feast, etc., is very easily 
explained, when we reflect that John wrote for Greeks, who did not, 
like the Jews, compute the beginning of the day from sunset, 
Hence the fourteenth of Nisan might be as justly called the day 
before the passover, as (after six o’clock in the evening) it might 
be called the first day of the feast. Add to this, that the words 
quoted are not connected immediately with the narrative of the sup- 
per, but with his consciousness that his hour was come. In ver. 2, 
especially, καὶ δείπνου γενομένου, render it evident that the supper 
was later. Accordingly, we must translate—“ When the passover 
drew nigh, Jesus knew that his hour was come, and when the meal 
was prepared,” etc. (Yet on this difficult construction, consult par- 
ticulars in our illustration of the passage.) But, in the passages 
John xix. 14-31, in which the day of the Saviour’s death is called 


Frisch had previously promulgated in his treatise on the paschal lamb, 1758—the paschal 
lamb was eaten, not at the end, but at the beginning of the 14th of Nisan, that is, at the 
transition-point from the 13th to the 14th, from three in the afternoon to nine in the 
evening, after our reckoning: a hypothesis which, indeed, throws ligt upen many 
points, but by no means removes all the difficuities, 


MarrHew XXVI, 17. 617 


παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, preparation of the Passover, this expression 
may be taken as indicating the day previous to the Sabbath which 
occurs during the paschal feast ; and which was therefore observed 
as a peculiarly sacred vigil, or day of preparation. This explanation 
of the expression acquires force from the fact, that not the slightest 
proof can be adduced that παρασκευή, aia On was commonly 
used to signify a day of preparation for a feast. (Compare the par- 
ticulars in the exposition of the passage quoted.) The passage in 
John xviii, 28, is far more difficult, however, and it is only in con- 
nexion with it that the proper import of the others can be ascer- 
tained : “the Jews, it is here stated, went not into the Preetorium 
of Pilate, lest they should be defi τ but ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φάγωσι τὸ πάσχα, 
but that they might eat the passover, from which it would appear 
that they had not yet held the passover, whilst, according to the 
Synoptical Gospels, Jesus had on the previous evening celebrated it 
with his disciples. 

This striking variation in the chronology has, to some extent, 
led scholars to very arbitrary conclusions.* Whilst Bretschneider 
makes use of it to repudiate the Gospel of John, others, as Usteri 
and Theile} have drawn from it inferences in favour of John, and 
against the Synoptical Gospels. But, in decisive opposition to the 
contradictory views of both parties, in this controversy, is the re- 
markable circumstance—on which Tholuck (on John xiii. 1) lays 
much stress—that the churches of Asia Minort maintained the 
opinion that the paschal feast should be observed at the same time 
with the Jews, according to the custom introduced by John into 
Ephesus. The Western churches, on the contrary, maintained the 
opposite view, following the authority of Peter and Paul.§ From 
this it is clear that the description by John in no way contradicts 
the notion that Jesus held the passover at the same time with the 
Jews. But, even if the contradiction were irreconcileable, may we 
not ask if it is not admissible here, as in other passages, simply to say 


* Tholuck (fifth edition of the Commentary on John, 247, note) remarks very cor- 
rectly, that even if all attempts at reconciliation failed, yet from this apparent discrepancy, 
nothing could be inferred against the credibility of the evangelical history, since it is 
self-evident that a real discrepancy could not have occurred amongst the Evangelists on 
such a point. Especially so, I would subjoin, since it is inconceivable that a myth or 
legend could have sprung up upon a point in itself so irrelevant, and, historically consid- 
ered, so difficult to be overlooked. Now, since the discovery at any time of a new arche- 
ological fact—as Tholuck quite correctly remarks—might turn the proof either to the right 
or left, one, therefore, acts best to treat this entire investigation as purely one of antiquae 
rian importance. 

+ The former, in the * Commentatio critica, in qua evangelium Joannis genuinum esse 
2x comparatis qavtuor evangeliorum, narrationibus, de ccena ultimo, et de passione J. 
-Yhr. Ostenditur. Turici, 1823.” The latter in Winer’s “ Krit. Journal,” vol. ii. p. 2. 

t (In the celebrated controversy on the Easter Festival, in the second century.) 

§ Compare the passages in my “ Monum, Hist, Kecl. vol. i. p. 271, et seg. 


618 Martrurw XXXVI. 17. 


that John, or even the Synoptical Evangelists, erred in assigning the 
time of the meal, and confounded one day with the other, without 
any further imputation against their credibility ? The impossibility 
of this interchange cannot be strictly maintained, yet the assumption 
can in no way be made probable, for John’s description of the last 
hours which the Lord spent on earth, bears a character of precision 
and carefulness which renders it improbable that he could have been 
mistaken in so important a circumstance, and one so easily remem- 
bered. And even as to the Synoptical writers it is hardly conceivable 
that they could have been deceived in a particular so momentous 
These considerations urgently require that further attempts should 
be made to reconcile those apparent discrepancies upon which so 
much learning and sagacity have been already expended. Compare 
the more special investigation of this suhject in Tholuck’s Commen- 
tary on John xiii. 1, fifth edition. Μίαν hypotheses on this point 
must be rejected at once. Amongst these are the notions of Beza, 
Calovius, and others, that the Jews had postponed the eating of the 
paschal lamb a whole day, for which there is no ground whatever. 
And on the other hand, the opinion that Jesus had arbitrarily fixed 
the festival a day earlier than usual. In order to make this earlier 
date of the feast of Jesus explicable, some persons, since the time 
of Iken, have had recourse to a distinct mode of computation from 
the moon and its phases which is said to have obtained amongst the 
Pharisees and Sadducees, which would at least do away with the 
arbitrariness of the earlier celebration. But this hypothesis rests 
merely on the fact that the later sect of the Karaites, which sprang 
out of that of the Sadducees, had a different mode of computing the 
moon’s phases ; but whether the Sadducees had this mode at the 
time of Christ is altogether uncertain. 

There remain, therefore, only two hypotheses which are of con- 
sequence, and which claim any consideration. The one is the hy- 
pothesis proposed by Grotius ; that the Saviour ate a commemora- 
tive passover (πάσχα μνημονευτικόν), not a sacrificial one (θύσιμον). 
By the first name is signified a lamb, which, without being properly 
a paschal lamb—this, as has been stated, was to be slaughtered and 
eaten in Jerusalem only—was used as a substitute for it. The 
Jews have eaten such a commemorative passover ever since the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, whilst living dispersed amongst foreign na- 
tions. But that it was the custom, during the existence of the 
Temple, at the time of Christ, to eat a commemorative passover out 
of Jerusalem, is not only indemonstrable, but improbable: not to 
mention that Luke xxii. 7 must certainly refer to the θύσιμον, it is 
inconceivable that in Jerusalem itself, Jesus would have eaten any 
other than the customary paschal lamb, To this it may be added 
that the Jews solemnize their commemorative passover at present on 


Marruew XXVI. 17. 619 


the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, in order to preserve as 
nearly as possible the original character of the festival. We can- 
not see therefore how the reference to this custom can settle the 
controversy. On the other hand a complete solution of the diffi- 
culty may be expected from that other intimation of John xviii. 28. 
At the conclusion of the first day of the -passover, a solemn sacrifice 
was presented, which was called 3:35. The victim, like all others 
presented on that day, was called no=, This is clearly proved by 
Deuteronomy xvi. 2, where it is said payssnimk hee nhan. Here 
great and small cattle are comprehended under the nee. But the 
proper passover was always a male kid of the sheep or goats. Hence 
it follows that the other sacrifices during the feast of ihe passover, 
some of which were oxen, were all included in the word ney. In a 
similar sense must be understood e*m8, in 2 Chronicles xxxv. 7, et 
seq.—as including the various passover offerings. To this must be 
added the circumstance to which Bynaeus directs attention that the 
entering of a heathen house defiled the Jews for the same day only; 
a defilement which they term 5‘ su. 

To enter the Preetorium of Pilate would therefore have excluded 
the Jews from the Chagigah, which fell on the same day, but not 
from the passover ; which, assuming that Jesus died on the four- 
teenth of Nisan, would not have occurred until the following day, 
after six o’clock in the evening. Tholuck declares himself in fa- 
vour of this interpretation ; and Liicke, upon the whole, is of the 
same opinion, only he is opposed to the usus loquendi that ney can 
also signify other offerings, which is, however, fully established by 
the passages quoted fiom the Old Testament, as well as by others 
from the Rabbinical writings. In this hypothesis, the only difficulty 
arises from the use of the article in the phrase φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα, 
John xviii. 28, where it seems to indicate the real passover ; but 
even the position of the article in this connexion admits of a sim- 
ple explanation, from the fact, that John presumed to be well 
known to his readers, the yet prospective participation of the Cha- 
gigah which was signified by the name.7tdoya.* 

* Tholuck, in the fourth edition of his Commentary on John, stated that the treatise of 
Rauch upon the last passover of Jesus (in Ullmann’s Stud. und Kritisch, Jahrgersh, 1832), 
seemed to him to solve all doubts respecting the difference between John and the Synop- 
tical writers. Rauch calls attention to the fact, that if the passover, according to the law, 
was to be eaten on the fourteenth of Nisan, not the end, but the beginning of the day is 
to be understood. On this he appeals to Josephus (Arch. ii. 5, iii. 10). So that, thus in 
the transition from the thirteenth to the fourteenth of Nisan, the paschal Jamb should be 
eaten. Now, even if this were quite correct, still I do not see how by that means alone 
the difficulties can be entirely obviated. This Tholuck also admits in the fifth edition. 
For the most difficult passage, the φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα, John xviii. 28, can, even after this 
view being granted, be understood in no other way than as referring to the additional 


offerings connected with the feast, or indeed, as Rauch prefers, to the unleavened bread, 
But the fact that, according to this hypothesis there must be assumed an intervening 


620 Marruew XXYVI. 18, 19, 


Ver. 18, 19.—Under the making ready for the Passover, which 
Jesus entrusted to the two disciples, Peter and John (Luke xxii. 8) 
the convenient arrangement of the room merely is not to be under- 
stood, but also and chiefly the slaying of the lamb. That should 
be done in the Temple, and on that day every Israelite exercised, 
so to speak, priestly functions.* The room in which the solemn 
festival was to be held (Mark and Luke use for it κατάλυμα = ξενο- 
δοχεῖον, so Luke ii. 7. Yet the LXX. use the word κατάλυμα for 
naub which in 1 Samuel ix. 22, signifies an eating-room), the two 
more careful narrators ene as an ἀνάγαιον (--- nrb9, ὑπερῷον) ἐ ἐσ- 
τρωμένον, furnished chamber. Mark explains the latter expression by 
the annexed ἕτοιμον, prepared, that is, prepared for a banquet, fur- 
nished with table and couches. It corresponds with the Latin 
Sternere, which signified the preparing of couches for a banquet. 
We have no direct information concerning the house-owner. If, as 
was observed above, Jesus did not wish to name him, on account of 


day, not a festival day, between the partaking of the paschal meal and the first feast day, 
manifestly does not commend it to a favourable reception. 

Compare De Wette (in den Stud. 1834; h. 4). In other respects several important 
considerations favour this hypothesis of Rauch. For instance, the passage in the Tal- 
mud (Sanhedrim, fol. 43, s. 1), where it is said, ‘on the evening of the passover,” that 
is, at the end of the day, ‘‘ they crucified Jesus.” This, for example, seems to assume 
that Jesus ate the lamb at the beginning of the day. The statement of Clement of Alex- 
andria also—in the fragments of his Treatise on the Passover, published in J. A. Fabri- 
cius’ edition of the works of Hippolytus, vol. ii. p. 66—that the paschal festival of Christ 
as a symbolic one, fell upon the thirteenth, and his sufferings on the fourteenth of Nisan, 
is fully explained by the fact that he gave the beginning of the day according to Jewish 
computation, at six o’clock in the evening; and according to the Greek mode of compu- 
ting, as belonging to the previous day. Compare Ideler’s Chronology, Berlin, 1831, sect. 
216, seq. Schneckenburger’s view as to the chronology of the passion-week, in his contri- 
butions to an introduction to the New Testament, s. 1, seq., is still less satisfactory than 
Rauch’s. According to his view, the Lord must have been crucified on Wednesday, and 
have lain in the grave three whole days, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. 

He seeks to establish this hypothesis by the following means:—He understands the 
παρασκευῇ, preparation (John xix. 31, 42) as a distinct feast, belonging to the cycle of 
the passover, which had reference to the harvest, and was, so to speak, a preparation for 
Pentecost. Still, the passages from*Philo, to which this scholar appeals, have failed to 
convince me of the tenableness of his explanation. I entirely agree with Sieffert (uber 
den Matthzeus, p. 128: note), when he says, ‘The entire investigation concerning the 
celebration of Jesus’ last paschal meal, has no influence whatever in determining the 
day οὗ the week. Christ was crucified on Friday, according to all the Evangelists. 
Hence the only question is, whether the Friday was the fourteenth or the fifteenth of 
Nisan.” 

* Philo de vita Mosis, p. 686, says of the paschal feast, σύμπαν τὸ ἔθνος ἱερᾷται. “ The 
priests alone could not possibly slay all the lambs, the number of which, at this feast, 
must have amounted to two millions, according to Josephus.” But this calculation is 
surely exaggerated, since at least ten persons should eat of every lamb. Let us suppose 
that, during the paschal feasts, there were two millions of men present in Jerusalem. 
Then, at most, the number of lambs would amount to 200,000; but even this number is 
quite great enough to make it impossible for the priests, in the space of a few hours, 

‘from three o’clock in the afternoon until nine in the evening, to slay them 


MartHew XXVI. 18, 19. 621 


Judas, yet it would seem that Matthew, when he wrote afterwards, 
might have given his name. But he merely says πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα, a 
certain one. An expression that corresponds with the Hebrew 
‘xb, which always occurs in connexion with >x, and signifies 
something which, though known, it is not convenient to express. 
Compare Ruth iv. 1; 1 Samuel xxi. 2. The supposition is not im- 
probable, that Matthew did not name the man, lest he should com- 
promise him, for he himself, or at least his family, must have been 
living when Matthew wrote. It is not expressly stated that he was 
a disciple of Jesus: but the words ‘‘my time is near” (ὁ καιρός μου 
ἐγγύς éovwv),in Matth. xxvi. 18, render it highly probable. The ex- 
pression, my time, cannot refer merely to the hour appointed for the 
feast, but to the entire development of the life of the Son, as or- 
dained by the Father, and which was now approaching its com- 
pletion. If the expression καιρός pov, or the synonymous one ὥρα 
μου, indicate apparently a mere date (as in John ii. 4, vil. 6) yet a 
closer examination will shew that even in these passages 10 has a 
deeper significance, to which the pronoun manifestly refers: it 
would seem to indicate that the time was fixed by the will of 
the heavenly Father. Compare the explication of the above pas- 
sage. This then makes it probable that the possessor of the house 
was an intimate friend of the Lord. We might hazard a supposi- 
tion as to Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus, for the dwelling 
seems to have been that of a distinguished man. This view being 
admitted, the πρός σε ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα, I keep the Passover with thee, 
will not convey the sense of a dry announcement merely, but will 
appear as an expression of the Saviour’s love towards his disciple. 
“In your very house I desire to keep the feast with my disciples.” 

Like Zaccheus, this man would have regarded it as a token of 
favour, that the Lord should in this way consecrate his dwelling. 
That he was not present at the meal is explained very simply ; be- 
cause, as master of the house, he had to officiate amongst his own 
family in conducting the paschal feast. 

After this account concerning the preparation of the feast, im- 
mediately follows the description of the proceedings at the meal 
itself. Towards evening (at the beginning of the fifteenth of Nisan) 
Jesus sat down to the repast with his disciples, that is with all the 
twelve, as the Synoptical Evangelists unanimously state, Matth. 
xxvl. 20: ὀψίας γενομένης. Luke has ὅτε ἐγένετο ἡ ὥρα. Where 
it is simply an indication of the hour, since the pronoun pov is 
wanting. 

The article indicates the definite time for the feast of the pass- 
over, so that the meaning of the statement is, “‘ When the hour ap- 
pointed in the law was come.” For the ἀνέκειτο in Matthew, Luke 
has (xxii. 14) ἀνέπεσε. Both expressions weve in common use to 


622 Marrnew XXVI. 18, 19. 


signify the sitting down to a meal. Luke alone—xxii, 14-18—gives 
us the words with which the Redeemer introduced the festival, and 
also its solemn opening. The words commence, as was natural, 
with the mention of his prospective sufferings, and with the expres- 
sion of his yearning desire to partake of the paschal feast once more, 
and for the last time, with his followers, in this temporal and earthly 
state (αἰὼν οὕτος). The opening, “ardently have I desired” (ἐπιθυμίᾳ 
ἐπεθύμησα), bears a character most profound and heart-touching. 
How purely human, how thoroughly susceptible of love, of desire, 
of sorrow, how far from all stoical apathy, appears the Saviour ! ! 
᾿Ἐπιθυμεῖν, here, as in many other passages, signifies in its higher 
sense, a strong desire, a longing, equivalent to yy2—and its meaning 
is further intensified by the annexed ἐπιθυμίᾳ. Compare Genesis 
xxxi. 30, where the LXX. also have it. In entire accordance with 
the Jewish customs described above, Jesus commenced the ceremony 
with a thanksgiving prayer (εὐχαριστήσας εἶπε), and then handed 
round the cup (Luke xxii. 17). This cup must be distinguished 
from that which was circulated at the holy supper, for the latter was 
not filled until the paschal feast was concluded. (Compare Luke 
xxii. 28.) The former was the first cup before that feast. Of the 
others which immediately followed it, the evangelical history is 
silent. 

To the usual words with which this cup was distributed, λάβετε 
τοῦτο, Kat διαμερίσατε ἑαυτοῖς, take this and distribute among your- 
selves, Luke, verse 18, adds the remark οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γεννή- 
ματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως ὅτου ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ, I shall not drink 
of the fruit, etc. The same thought he had already expressed 
(Luke xxii. 16) in connexion with ‘eating the Passover.” (In the 
latter place, the formula πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ stands for the ἔλθη 
ἡ βασιλεία. The reading βρωθῇ is certainly formed after Matthew 
xxvi, 29, and ought to be rejected. But the question arises, What 
should be supplied in πληρωθὴῆ ? We might add πάντα, but follow- 
ing Matthew xxvi. 29, where the same thought is more precisely 
expressed, πάσχα must be supplied. So that the sense of the pas- 
sage is, ‘until the passover shall be celebrated in a more perfect form 
in the kingdom of God.”’) Regarding the thought we shall speak 
more fully in the exposition of Matthew xxvi. 29. Here we have 
only to enquire whether the position of these words before the sup- 
per, according to Luke, or after it, according to Matthew xxvi. 29, 
be the more correct. 

To me it does not appear at all improbable that Jesus uttered 
the same thought more than once. In it is concentrated the entire 
consolation which the Saviour imparted to his disciples upon mention- ἡ 
ing his suffering, and that this was to be their last meal in company; 
for the present indeed we no longer keep the paschal feast together, 


Matruew XXVI. 18, 19. 623 


but we shall celebrate it more gloriously in my kingdom.” The fact 
that Jesus recurred to the same thought Luke xxii, 29, 30, in the 
altercation among the disciples as to who should be the greatest, har- 
monizes perfectly with this view. If the repetition be not admitted, 
however, then the thought stands most appropriately after the sup- 
per, for even in the supper the passover is already spiritualized, and 
to this seems to belong the idea that in the kingdom of God it will 
receive its final completion. 

At this point, as we observed when arranging the sequence of 
events in the last supper of the Lord, arose no doubt the strife 
amongst the disciples as to who should be the greatest, Luke xxii. 
24-30, which occasioned the feet-washing, John xiii. This hap- 
pened, as is manifest from John xiii. 4, ἐγείρεται éx τοῦ δείπνου com- 
pared with verse 12, after they had sat down to the meal, and 
during the presence of Judas. So that the Saviour must have 
washed his very betrayer’s feet, which renders his humility more 
striking. Here only can this discourse be placed therefore, for im- 
mediately atter the declaration of Jesus concerning the traitor, Judas 
withdrew. 

On the occasion of that dispute, nothing is mentioned: the 
common conjecture as to its origin is, that the apostles were still ex- 
pecting the establishment of an earthly kingdom by the Redeemer, 
and aspired after the, highest places which they supposed it would 
include ; but this can hardly be maintained, for if such motives had 
insinuated themselves into the minds of the disciples, the remarks 
of Christ were by no means calculated to destroy their false expec- 
tations, but rather to confirm them, since Jesus promised that they 
should sit on thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Com- 
pare Luke xxi. 30, with Matthew xix. 28, and our observations in 
the Commentary on these passages. In the parallel case (Matth. 
xx. 20, seq.), which arose from an external occasion, and in which 
the rest of the disciples at least thought they perceived such a striy- 
ing after earthly theocratic power in the children of Zebedee, there 
is no expression which could be so misunderstood as to convey the 
impression that the Saviour himself excited their strife ; on the con- 
trary Jesus represents the surrender of life itself as the necessary 
expression of pure love, Matth. xx. 28. 

Besides, according to this view, the disciples would appear in 
the highest degree devoid of sympathy, were it possible for them, 
at a moment so sacred, to think more of themselves than of their 
lord and master. The conjecture that the contention arose concern- 
ing their several places at the table appears far more acceptable. 
Each of them wished to seat himself near the Lord; and the pos- 
session of these which they sought essentially through the love of 
the Saviour, might have caused some reference to higher or lower 


624 Luxe XXII 24-28, 


stations in the kingdom of Christ; and these hints, although but 
casually expressed, gave occasion to Christ to inculcate once more 
upon the disciples the doctrine that meekness and self-abasement 
are the peculiar virtues of the Christian. 

Luke xxii. 24, contains the expression φιλονεικία, which does not 
again occur in the New Testament. In 2 Maccabees iv. 4, it stands 
as equivalent to μάχη. In the phrase τό, τίς αὐτῶν x. τ. λ., τό must 
be regarded as the accusative absolute. 

Ver. 25, 26.—The following words correspond entirely with the 
passage Matthew xx. 25, seq. Still the differences are sufficiently 
great to forbid the transfer of these words from one occurrence to 
another ; the simple thoughts, however, might very easily have been 
repeated upon similar occasions. The name εὐεργέτης, benefactor, is 
peculiar to Luke’s gospel. It was a title of honour which, was 
sometimes given to kings, as 6. g. Ptolemy Euergetes.* Philo (in the 
Legat. ad Gajum) names the emperor Caligula Saviour and bene- 
factor (σωτὴρ καὶ εὐεργέτης). In2 Maccabees iv. 2, the phrase does 
not indicate a title, but simply the ministry of Onias. In the ὑμεῖς 
δὲ οὐχ οὕτως, it were best to supply ἔσεσθε. The signification of 
μείζων is determined by the antithetical correlative νεώτερος. Matth. 
xx. 26, places διάκονος in antithesis to μέγας. 

Ver. 27.—The words ‘but I am in your midst as he that 
serveth” (ἐγὼ δέ εἰμι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν ὡς ὁ διακονῶν) manifestly point to 
the feet-washing, so that the account in John, derives no insignifi- 
cant support from this passage. Comp. John xiii. 7, seq. 

Ver. 28.—The connexion of this verse with the preceding is 
obscure. Kuinoel conjectures, that the disciples had in the mean- 
while spoken much that is omitted. But that is little probable; at 
least had the discourse been abridged, still in the very abridgement 
there would have been, at the least, an intelligible connexion. That 
connexion is doubtless as follows: Upon the humbling remarks ot 
Jesus, which had been called forth by the manifestation of their 
carnal feeling, the Redeemer addressed to them some encouraging 
words. He acknowledges the true patience and devotedness which 
had enabled them to share with him in all his trials and conflicts, thus 
shewing that this self-abasing love already existed in them ({. 6. in 
their renewed nature), and made them meet for and worthy of the 
kingdom of God. (Πειρασμός = διωγμός. Comp. Luke viii. 18 with 
Matth. xii. 21.) 


* Luther translates the words εὐεργέται καλοῦνται, “ they are called gracious lords ;” — 
an expression entirely in accordance with the connexion. 


i eh ἀν νοι: 
heed, Hh ANRC 4 
Py ap δ ας: 
δ. ae ΠΥ ΤΥ. 
uy πω. ; 
S diawoly ane Ἢ 
ἢ Bae by εἶν fe a ἄν. 
δ yoni hea A. ; ' oll Ἄρα 
C7 de Δ 
οἰ ον 6 SETA 
ΟΝ hd 
δυο, 
mt a ἌΝ 
ἀϑνρν τ: 


ΠΡ, Shs) 
ἤν να ati Ave a: ἊΨ eee Ν 
i it) ΠΝ a ¥ bis ἰῇ . 
{ΑΔ 


τὰ ad yt rhs 


Sek 
[Aas “in see 


i Up aa 


Date Due 
Ap 14 ὯΔ 
RARE ze 


ee 


